Show your love for the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS
- Thread starter AnselA
- Start date
- Status
T
Tracy Pinto
Guest
Great shots all around. Bob Ansela thanks for starting this posting as don't remember anything like it about his lens. We have so many good Canon choices but this is one often overlooked.
I have owned this lens for five years and I can recommend it. It packs small, is light and it is much more discreet than my white telephotos so I carry it more in the cities on my trips abroad. I find it plenty fast for focusing and only dislike trying to use the polarizer with it. I guess the fact this lens produces sharp images, has good contrast, produces natural saturation and has a very good IS system makes it a frequent option for me. I have taken it on every trip since I bought it even though I own two L lens that cover some of the same ground. It is very practical.
I have owned this lens for five years and I can recommend it. It packs small, is light and it is much more discreet than my white telephotos so I carry it more in the cities on my trips abroad. I find it plenty fast for focusing and only dislike trying to use the polarizer with it. I guess the fact this lens produces sharp images, has good contrast, produces natural saturation and has a very good IS system makes it a frequent option for me. I have taken it on every trip since I bought it even though I own two L lens that cover some of the same ground. It is very practical.
Upvote
0
The mid grade 70-300mm IS is a great little lens, I still use it on my backup body. I will admit however that I purchased it to serve that focal length (wildlife photography) until I could afford the 70-300mm L, which is of course in an exponentially different league.
If the 70-300mm IS were to die tomorrow I would have no reservations about purchasing another to replace it!
If the 70-300mm IS were to die tomorrow I would have no reservations about purchasing another to replace it!
Upvote
0
C
CanonCollector
Guest
DJD - perfect bird portrait. Was it handheld or with a tripod?
Bob Sanderson - Great framing and lovely portrait of the squirrel also beautiful architectural detail from Kyoto with excellent exposure.
Bob Ansela - birds, birds, birds! All wonderful images and very sharp right down to every little and colorful feather. The seal baby seal could not be cozier than napping on it's mom.
Bob Sanderson - Great framing and lovely portrait of the squirrel also beautiful architectural detail from Kyoto with excellent exposure.
Bob Ansela - birds, birds, birds! All wonderful images and very sharp right down to every little and colorful feather. The seal baby seal could not be cozier than napping on it's mom.
Upvote
0
The 70-300 IS USM is a great lens. Is it an "L" lens? No, but it doesn't have to be. I have done sharpness comparisons between the 70-200 f4L and the 70-300 IS USM at 200mm and they are both amazing. The 300 loses a little detail but it is worth it for the extra reach. I will never sell mine. I still use it and will continue to do so. It is worth every penny spent. It's a great lens in the EF line-up.
Too many people out there think that unless the lens is white or comes with a "red stripe" it is not worth owning. I do not believe that. Canon has several non-"L" lenses out there that are fantastic and some are even EF-s, the HORROR!!!
Do yourself a favor, get some 1/16' tomato red 3m stripe and put a band over the gold stripe at the end of the lens. That way no one will complain or even care to comment...
D
Too many people out there think that unless the lens is white or comes with a "red stripe" it is not worth owning. I do not believe that. Canon has several non-"L" lenses out there that are fantastic and some are even EF-s, the HORROR!!!
Do yourself a favor, get some 1/16' tomato red 3m stripe and put a band over the gold stripe at the end of the lens. That way no one will complain or even care to comment...
D
Upvote
0
Have you compared the 70-200 + 1.4x TC against the 70-300. With the TC, I no longer find a use for the 70-300.
Richard8971 said:The 70-300 IS USM is a great lens. Is it an "L" lens? No, but it doesn't have to be. I have done sharpness comparisons between the 70-200 f4L and the 70-300 IS USM at 200mm and they are both amazing. The 300 loses a little detail but it is worth it for the extra reach. I will never sell mine. I still use it and will continue to do so. It is worth every penny spent. It's a great lens in the EF line-up.
Too many people out there think that unless the lens is white or comes with a "red stripe" it is not worth owning. I do not believe that. Canon has several non-"L" lenses out there that are fantastic and some are even EF-s, the HORROR!!!
Do yourself a favor, get some 1/16' tomato red 3m stripe and put a band over the gold stripe at the end of the lens. That way no one will complain or even care to comment...
D
Upvote
0
The lesson for me is that you need to do a fair evaluation without some instant L snobbery or blindness. I love my L lenses especially the Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM, Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L and the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L (another lens that is slammed regularly here). But I also very much like my 50mm f/1.4 which does not get a fair evaluation here either. It is a real wonder.
The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS should really be in the mix when you consider that its IS cousin the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is twice the price and that is without adding in the Canon Extender EF 1.4x III to match the reach. The cost of the extender alone is equal to the cost of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS.
To do the very finest professional work the L may in fact be the only option. The reviews of the L lenses would agree with this. But for the rest of us where cost is a factor that may deter us from buying other desired photo goodies then maybe the non-L is worth a real look. You can produce some beautiful images and excellent enlargements at a very reasonable cost with a non-L too.
The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS should really be in the mix when you consider that its IS cousin the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is twice the price and that is without adding in the Canon Extender EF 1.4x III to match the reach. The cost of the extender alone is equal to the cost of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS.
To do the very finest professional work the L may in fact be the only option. The reviews of the L lenses would agree with this. But for the rest of us where cost is a factor that may deter us from buying other desired photo goodies then maybe the non-L is worth a real look. You can produce some beautiful images and excellent enlargements at a very reasonable cost with a non-L too.
Upvote
0
swampler said:Have you compared the 70-200 + 1.4x TC against the 70-300. With the TC, I no longer find a use for the 70-300.
Richard8971 said:The 70-300 IS USM is a great lens. Is it an "L" lens? No, but it doesn't have to be. I have done sharpness comparisons between the 70-200 f4L and the 70-300 IS USM at 200mm and they are both amazing. The 300 loses a little detail but it is worth it for the extra reach. I will never sell mine. I still use it and will continue to do so. It is worth every penny spent. It's a great lens in the EF line-up.
Too many people out there think that unless the lens is white or comes with a "red stripe" it is not worth owning. I do not believe that. Canon has several non-"L" lenses out there that are fantastic and some are even EF-s, the HORROR!!!
Do yourself a favor, get some 1/16' tomato red 3m stripe and put a band over the gold stripe at the end of the lens. That way no one will complain or even care to comment...
D
Hmmm, why not just dump the 200 and go for the 400L prime or 600L prime? The 1.4 tele works best on the 70-200 2.8L as the 4L can loose some AF speed in darker shooting areas. You are now looking at almost 3 grand for that setup or about $2600.00 for the 70-300 f4L setup. The 70-300 IS USM is $650.00. It is a VERY affordable lens that delivers excellent quality for a third the price.
Not everyone can afford "L" lenses nor should they be pressured into thinking that the equipment that they can afford "sucks" because it is not the "best of the best". Each camera body and each lens serves a purpose and they do the job for which they were designed.
This thread was "show your love for the 70-300", not "Hey, this lens sucks, what would you use instead?" Let's get back to the original post.
D
Attachments
Upvote
0
I actually like the 70-300, I got the 70-200 for sports, then with the TC, I just find that I don't use the 70-300 anymore. Since the person I responded to had both lenses, I merely asked a question. Not sure how you got "Hey, this lens sucks" from my post.Richard8971 said:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
