Canon 70-300f4/5.6 is usm

[glider64]

Recently i`ve been looking at some shots taken with one of these and have been suitably impressed , i had been looking at saving for a 400 f5.6 l but got sidetracked and bought a Canon 1d mk2; has anyone got the 70-300 and can recomend getting it? I do appreciate the 400mm lens is probably better IQ but it`s so expensive and the 70-300 have been around the £300.00 mark, plus the zoom has more general uses,many thanks Harvey

[Petros]

Re: Canon 70-300f4/5.6 is usm

I bought the 70 - 300 IS USM (non-L) lens last year and have to say I have been really impressed with its performance. It has been described as "the hidden L lens" - the optical performance is probably not that far away, build wise it is fair to say it is not close, but as you say at £300+ it has proved to be good value for me so far. The following two pics are the very first I took with the lens hand held on a pretty miserable day at low shutter speed and at300mm, and the second is one of the the last I took a week or so ago, 70mm.





Peter

[glider64]

Re: Canon 70-300f4/5.6 is usm

Thanks Peter, that`s the sort of thing i`m talking about it`s a nice lens and certainly affordable and i`m assuming it can be cropped a bit as well,Harvey

[Petros]

Re: Canon 70-300f4/5.6 is usm

I am using it on a 30D at the moment - I expect the it will perform even better with the 1D2. Peter

[secondintime]

Re: Canon 70-300f4/5.6 is usm

I've been thinking about one of these too. Wondering how it compares to the 55-250mm which I already have? just after a little more reach really, the IQ on the 55-250 is good but sometime i want that extra bit of range.

[mikep]

Re: Canon 70-300f4/5.6 is usm

Hi Glider

I use the 70-300 IS USM on a 550D - have done since starting photography 15 months ago. Feel free to review my flickr site, as most shots are on this lens, certainly all the wildlife / birds are.

I've been very happy with it as a 'learning' lens, and I've managed some really nice sharp shots. I'm now looking to move up to the L version, as the non L can sometimes hunt for focus, and I've lost shots. Also, it rotates the barrel when focussing, so tricky to use a polariser properly! The L version is ring USM and full time manual focus, and I have read reviews that it's quite better quality (IQ).
For the price point, I think the non-L is a very good lens. The 55-250 may have lightly better IQ (?), and is quite highly rated by those who have it on here, but I wanted the extra reach of 300mm!

The non-L version also works with the Kenko 1.4 extender with full AF on my 550D.

Hope that helps, Mike.

[secondintime]

Re: Canon 70-300f4/5.6 is usm

Also looking at the Sigma 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 DG Macro, purely based on the fact they are going for about £90, and it has a macro facility.

[glider64]

Re: Canon 70-300f4/5.6 is usm

Thanks for all the replies, i already own a sigma 105mm macro so i`ve got that covered, a nifty fifty which i rarely use and my trusty tamron 70-300mm which i`ve taken some of my favourite shots with i`m torn between the 70-300 is usm and the 400 f5.6 L the big problem is the 400mm is going to take forever to save for and i`m thinking i`ll miss so many shots had i have gone for the 70-300 but have been so impressed but it, Harvey

[tesarver]

Re: Canon 70-300f4/5.6 is usm

I traded in my 70-200 L f/4 for the 70-300 L f/4-5.6.

All I can say is that I have no regrets. Just love the extra reach & the Lens is so compact. Shorter then the 70-200.

Tom

[Petros]

Re: Canon 70-300f4/5.6 is usm

Sigma 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 DG Macro, purely based on the fact they are going for about £90, and it has a macro facility.

My daughter has one of those lenses, which I have used several times. I found it reasonably good, but it is unable to match the sharpness of the Canon 70 -300 IS USM. Without the IS, the Sigma is also prone to producing camera shake at longer lengths unless used on a tripod. The Macro is a bit misleading in my opinion - it allows closer focus for smaller objects but is still a long way away from being a true macro.

Peter