Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM [Archive] - Page 3 - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Max F

21st of May 2008 (Wed), 17:00

Hi! I'm deciding between this lens and the 70-200 f4 L.

How about the focus speed? I have a 75-300 IS USM and it's awfully slow and always takes two or three time to make focus. And the IS? Is it quiet? In my 75-300 it's noisy move the whole lens until it's stabilized.

I have the 17-85 IS USM and I love that lens. Quiet, fast focus, fron element does't rotate. Is the 70-300 similar to this lens?

I wait for your comments.

Thanks a lot!

I have the 17-85 and the 70-300. People love to hate the 17-85, but one thing that it excels at is focus speed. That lens is so fast and quiet. Unfortunately the 70-300 isn't similar in that respect. However, I do recall reading that it is faster than the 75-300 and we know its sharper.

If focus speed is a big factor in your decision then you probably will be better off with the 70-200.

Max F

21st of May 2008 (Wed), 17:03

superbet, the focusing on the 70-200 is lighting fast. That is one of the reasons i went with it vs. the 70-300. I just figured that way better build, FTM, Non extending/rotating barrel, and incredible AF speed outweighed the extra 100mm. 200mm vs 300mm isn't really that big of a difference. Also, IS wouldn't be used very often, only at zoos, because IS becomes all but obsolete for sports. The best thing about it is that you get giddy when you use it, and it inspires loads of confidence, at least for me. Too bad i had to return it :(

200-300 mm is a big difference to me. I wouldn't even consider shooting birds at 200mm unless the were practically right next to me. Of course, I would like more than 300 mm, lol!

Also, I would never settle for a tele lens without IS.

MichSt

21st of May 2008 (Wed), 19:17

200-300 mm is a big difference to me. I wouldn't even consider shooting birds at 200mm unless the were practically right next to me. Of course, I would like more than 300 mm, lol!

Also, I would never settle for a tele lens without IS.

I agree. The extra reach and IS sold me on the 70-300 IS over the 70-200L.

I wouldn't want to shoot sports or wildlife with a 200mm lens. I'd like more reach too. 400mm would be nice :D

Max F

22nd of May 2008 (Thu), 12:57

Now I would love to have the 70-200mm, but it would have to be the IS version.

johngpt

23rd of May 2008 (Fri), 21:59

In another thread it had been suggested that I post my photos taken with the 70-300 here.

I'm standing at the half of the pitch during this football match, and snapped the keeper at the south end.

Shutter priority, 1/640s at f14, ISO 500, picture style Standard, IS on, and metadata says focal length was 235mm. The image is straight from the camera, only having been renamed in FileBuddy, along with all the others from that card. Image quality second from the bottom, the smooth "S."
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2244/2502270876_b11eddf3bd_b.jpg

This next image, I was still at the half, shooting straight across to the other side of the pitch. Same metadata, focal length 200mm.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2221/2502272748_8e6b16e7d7_b.jpg

Tv, 1/640s at f11, ISO 500, Picture Style Standard, focal length 300mm. This is the lens at max. I'm actually a bit further away than the exact half, by about 3 paces.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3056/2503124889_d9f793019f_b.jpg

Took some getting accustomed to the barrel extending during focusing, but holding the camera more firmly against eyebrow did the trick. I found I had fewer out of focus shots with this kit, the 70-300 on my 40D than I commonly would with my Olympus E-1, with its 50-200 and 1.4 teleconvertor. Seemed to focus quickly enough for the action of the match.

Hope this helps.

Westbeachbc

26th of May 2008 (Mon), 01:36

These fellas turned out all right! All @ 300mm.

http://ksato.dreamhosters.com/work/web/potn/victoria/20080516_0049.jpg

http://ksato.dreamhosters.com/work/web/potn/victoria/20080516_0081.jpg

http://ksato.dreamhosters.com/work/web/potn/victoria/20080516_0084.jpg

Broomer

31st of May 2008 (Sat), 02:36

pics taken with the kenko 1.4 TC and manual focus..

johngpt

31st of May 2008 (Sat), 10:23

Will the Kenko TC allow autofocus, or if using it with the 70-300, does one have to manually focus?

Broomer

31st of May 2008 (Sat), 18:44

Will the Kenko TC allow autofocus, or if using it with the 70-300, does one have to manually focus?

Yes it will AF but needs good light and contrast, as I have with this shot..
I find it hunts too much and prefer to use MF. I half press the shutter to activate the IS which stabilises the image making it easer to MF.

Jpg, Manual exposure, autofocus, f9 1/800 ISO 640 at 300mm + TC and no PP or cropping just size for web.

johngpt

31st of May 2008 (Sat), 19:13

Thank you sir.

Quite the crisp image.

Wonder if the fish improves reception on that antenna? :wink:

johngpt

1st of June 2008 (Sun), 16:59

I have lots of practice in store before I'll get to the level of Broomer and others. Here's my first try at birding, from last evening. I tried manually focusing, holding the shutter depressed half way. Nowhere as crisp as I would like. It looks like his chest is more in focus than his eye. Metadata says 1/2000 s at f5.6, ISO 500, 300mm. Even so, this was heavily cropped. I can see why the Kenko TC comes in handy.

Have to say, I'm really enjoying this lens. As my old teacher said, "you must practice, practice, practice."

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2292/2542022023_6af2169de5_o.jpg

Broomer

1st of June 2008 (Sun), 19:42

Great start there John..

I find f8/f9 a sweet spot for the lens..

Here's one I got yesterday with the TC.

JeffreyVB

2nd of June 2008 (Mon), 00:51

Beautiful photos everyone! I purchased mine from a fellow POTN member and just got started with it today. Still learning how to use it but here are a couple I took.

Ronnie

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2027/2439392798_2dc0be5450_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3122/2439150303_bffa501e3d_o.jpg

Looks like you are getting some good use out of my old lens ;)

S.Horton

2nd of June 2008 (Mon), 07:36

http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/305815297_5WoWo-L.jpg

ceegee

2nd of June 2008 (Mon), 14:43

Here's one of mine (cropped slightly, resized):

runninmann

4th of June 2008 (Wed), 12:34

Here's one of mine (cropped slightly, resized):I like the sparkplug perch :D.

Photo_Rebel

4th of June 2008 (Wed), 21:23

Here's one from this past weekend...:cool:

johngpt

4th of June 2008 (Wed), 21:39

Photo_Rebel, outstanding! Could you share the metadata?

Photo_Rebel

4th of June 2008 (Wed), 21:48

Photo_Rebel, outstanding! Could you share the metadata?

Thanks, John!:cool:

Resizing and compression on this site doesn't do wonders to the picture; the RAW file is way sharp!

As you requested:

300mm
5.6
1/640
ISO 100

ceegee

4th of June 2008 (Wed), 23:18

I like the sparkplug perch :D.

Thank you! It's one of my husband's "re-use what's in the garage" bird boxes. We have about 50 of them scattered all around our garden.

beepclick

5th of June 2008 (Thu), 00:25

One from this afternoon.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c358/vectorcafe/Flowers/Striped.jpg

scrumpy

5th of June 2008 (Thu), 07:27

From today. Cloudy/overcast.
400D/1/200sec/f9/ISO400/FL250mm. RAW.

Daniel_B

5th of June 2008 (Thu), 08:02

I got my copy of this lens yesterday, and first impressions are very favourable. Really impressive and sharp at full zoom. First real test is Biggin Hill airshow this coming weekend, but here's a couple of test shots from yesterday....

EOS 20D, ISO 200, f14, 1/125th @ 300mm, and then a 100% crop of the same photo...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/LNStrikeEagle/Sample01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/LNStrikeEagle/Sample02.jpg

EOS 20D, ISO 200, f8, 1/1000th @ 300mm, and then a 100% crop of the same photo...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/LNStrikeEagle/Sample03.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/LNStrikeEagle/Sample04.jpg

MichSt

5th of June 2008 (Thu), 08:18

I got my copy of this lens yesterday, and first impressions are very favourable. Really impressive and sharp at full zoom. First real test is Biggin Hill airshow this coming weekend.

That's one of the things that really impressed me about this lens too. It's pretty good wide open too.

Here's one of Jim Leyland of the Detroit Tigers, 300mm, f/5.6

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2515422384_8f7f1b5e82_o.jpg

Daniel_B

5th of June 2008 (Thu), 08:24

Yeah, I did a test shot wide open at 300mm yesterday and was pleasantly suprised - I'd say it's as good (if not slightly better) wide open as the 75-300 was in it's "sweet spot", which I found was around f8. The other thing you really notice as an improvement over that lens is the colour rendition too - it's more like an L series in that respect.

It's a step up from it's predecessor in every area I think. I'm delighted with it, and I got a great price too!

runninmann

5th of June 2008 (Thu), 10:52

.... RAW.It certainly is ;).

funhouse69

8th of June 2008 (Sun), 04:11

I just picked up a used copy of this lens off Craig's List and took it out for a walk around a local river. I have to say I am impressed with it. Here are a couple of shots I took with it.

This was taken on a very overcast day and shot at ISO 800. I was kind of surprised at how much noise I could see in them but I still think they came out ok. I should have bumped them up at least a stop.

1 - Right out of the camera, no pp / no crop Exif intact
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/308962766_xK3MA-L.jpg
2 - Same image 100% Crop / Exif intact
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/309131557_9cTos-L.jpg

isogood

8th of June 2008 (Sun), 08:38

XTI 400D

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m139/gerbalhunter/Insects/MonarchButterfly2.jpg

not sure your focus is on spot (or you get front-focus)

Crayons15

10th of June 2008 (Tue), 21:55

i think i've decided on this lens. ugh i'm still unsure though. sometimes it seems so nice and crisp and other times it doesn't.

i was really set on an L lens..but they are so expensive and so heavy. i have about $800 right now to spend..working a few more weeks i will have more between my 2 jobs but i just don't want to settle on this and wish i had gotten an L.

i want the 2.8L bc of the faster focus and aperture..but i'm not like a professional or anything and would just be using it to take pics for myself. someday i'd like to make money off my photos but for now i'm still in the beginning phase. so i think this lens would do me good to start out. plus, i'd like 300mm over 200mm. my dad raises birds so it'd be nice to take pics of them in flight.

i got to play with a Mark III last week and the 70-200 2.8L and the 100-400L and they are heavy. i could barely use the 400 it was so heavy!!! anyways, i'm not that advanced yet!

i think i'll get this one and test it out - see how i like it!

Mike55

10th of June 2008 (Tue), 21:58

i think i'll get this one and test it out - see how i like it!

The quality from 70-250mm wide open is really nice, just about as good as the 50 prime you have. For 300mm, switch to AV mode and lock it in at F8 for sharp images.

It's a really good lens and IMHO delivers more keepers more consistently than the 300F4 IS or the 100-400 IS. Seems to have a more modern IS and focusing system.

funhouse69

10th of June 2008 (Tue), 22:02

Crayons15

10th of June 2008 (Tue), 22:22

thank you for the info Mike! i'm gonna try to find a place to check the lens out at tomorrow :)

thats a really nice shot funhouse!

MichSt

11th of June 2008 (Wed), 07:47

I picked one of these up used for $350 off Craig's List and posted a few images on Saturday that impressed me. I also have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS which is razor sharp but I like the longer focal length of the 70-300. Add in the Crop Body and you are getting upwards of 480mm. This is why I am so reluctant to get a full frame body like the 5d :-(

Here is one that I took today. Straight out of the camera, no adjustments whatsoever only resized.

I’m in the same boat. I’ve thought about purchasing the 5D myself. Before there were UWA lenses for Canon’s crop cameras, I could see the necessity to upgrade to the 5D. But, now that there are a bunch of great UWA lenses available for crop cameras, and I just don’t see a huge advantage to getting the 5D anymore. I’d much have the longer reach a crop camera gives over any marginal gain there may be in image quality. I’ve also seen a few tests that show the high ISO noise performance is not that much better than the more recent XXD bodies (see link below).

Anyway, the reach with the 70-300 is very nice to have on a crop camera.

http://jasonhollister.com/blog/?p=44

sebr

15th of June 2008 (Sun), 11:55

Some flowers...

http://inlinethumb50.webshots.com/16241/2715361180100642291S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb30.webshots.com/42205/2618279170100642291S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb41.webshots.com/42472/2570664310100642291S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb46.webshots.com/40813/2128649750100642291S600x600Q85.jpg

Broomer

18th of June 2008 (Wed), 09:44

Shot with the kenko 1.4 TC

johngpt

18th of June 2008 (Wed), 12:40

Very nice Paul. I recall you'd mentioned that f8 or f9 was the "sweet spot" for the 70-300 lens. Would one of those have been the aperture you chose for this shot?

Sockrotter

18th of June 2008 (Wed), 15:38

I just bought my 70-300 about 3 weeks ago, and I'm very fond of it
I took this at 165mm and cropped it, because the little suckers move so quickly I couldn't find them before they flew off. :D
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5824/nuthatch1yj7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
ISO 200, 1/400, F8

Broomer

18th of June 2008 (Wed), 18:42

Very nice Paul. I recall you'd mentioned that f8 or f9 was the "sweet spot" for the 70-300 lens. Would one of those have been the aperture you chose for this shot?

Thats right John, f9.
I used live view, tripod, manual exposure, 1/160 f9 ISO 100 and under exposed by about two stops. Jpeg image cropped and PP.
Cheers.

johngpt

18th of June 2008 (Wed), 20:50

Thats right John, f9.
I used live view, tripod, manual exposure, 1/160 f9 ISO 100 and under exposed by about two stops. Jpeg image cropped and PP.
Cheers.
Thanks. I was wondering about the post processing. All my shots of the full moon have had a slight yellow cast to them until I set the white point with Levels or Curves.

funhouse69

18th of June 2008 (Wed), 22:36

I finally got my 40D the other day so I took it down to the Riverwalk which has become a favorite spot to test my equipment and get some cool pics.

Here are two with my 70-300 I have to say, I am impressed with the camera and was already impressed with the lens.

Both of these are straight out of the camera, no PP resize only.
1. ISO 400, f/11 @ 1/40th
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/315093734_2kUCv-XL.jpg
2. ISO 400, f/14 @ 1/20th to blur the water
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/315095435_fb5Yw-XL.jpg

Max F

18th of June 2008 (Wed), 23:01

Funhouse, those shots are very impressive considering the shutter speed. Where you at the full 300mm?

funhouse69

18th of June 2008 (Wed), 23:29

Funhouse, those shots are very impressive considering the shutter speed. Where you at the full 300mm?

Max I just checked the Exif and both of these were at the full 300mm. What can say I lucked out and got a great copy used off of Craig's List. I love this lens.

Nick_C

23rd of June 2008 (Mon), 12:18

Here is a test I did for a friend who wanted to see what the edge sharpness & overall image quality of this lens is when used on full frame, in my case the 5D.

A few details about the actual test:

1. All shots were handheld with IS turned on (see note 1)
2. Shutter speeds were above 1/1000th for all images.
3. All images shot in Raw & post processed (See note 2).
4. Centre focus point was used on the first set of images, far left focus point used on the images where the sign was over to one side.

Note 1: The reason why I turned IS on was only to make it easier to frame as I wasnt using a tripod, at 300mm without IS it can get a little shaky at times through the viewfinder.

Note 2: All images have been processed with typical standard techniques you would use yourself when processing images, nothing major has been done to the images, these are the results anyone can achieve, if a lens is too bad it doesnt make any difference how well you post process the image, there comes a limit to how good you can make the image look, as a reference I post process my 24-105L images in the same manner, I don't have to apply any different post processing techniques to the 70-300IS just because its not an L lens, its quite a capable lens in its own right.

#1...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3271/2603853945_13aa4c989d_o.jpg

#2...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3014/2603854175_efe5b8e96b_o.jpg

#3...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3058/2604681950_e7de8eb225_o.jpg

#4...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/2604682164_7e77835b77_o.jpg

That's the centre crops, wideopen this lens is pretty good, however as anyone knows its the edges of the frame that suffer the most, with the 5D being full frame it uses the very edge of the glass, more so than a 1.6x body like a 30/40D, so lets see how the 70-300IS performs at the edge of the frame.

#1...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3146/2604682408_fcc5403795_o.jpg

#2...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3264/2603855129_52aaef1e4a_o.jpg

#3...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/2603855397_312c1fe07c_o.jpg

#4...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/2603855559_31b53e5d80_o.jpg

I hope anyone thinking of purchasing this lens finds this useful, the reason I chose 300mm was this is the worst end of this lens, if you shoot at 200mm the results are even better, so for those of you who want a lightweight lens but something that can produce good results, think of it as a 70-200L but with a built in TC that only effects the long end, if you use it as a 70-200 it really shines! but you have that extra 100mm at the turn of the barrel, which is exactly how I use this lens, I dont like the size & weight of the 70-200L lenses, nor do I like using a TC as they effect the 70mm end, making it not so wide, which I find restricting as I like to use both ends when im shooting.

Thanks for looking <-damn ive been spending too much time on ebay, lol

Max F

23rd of June 2008 (Mon), 22:11

Thanks for the nice test! Its nice to know that if I ever go full frame I can keep using this lens with good results.

lr0868

27th of June 2008 (Fri), 01:12

got mine today and took some quick test photos, looks pretty good so far

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/sfbullygirl/IMG_16372.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/sfbullygirl/IMG_16312.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/sfbullygirl/IMG_16352.jpg

DreDaze

27th of June 2008 (Fri), 01:30

couple shots...
water drop used extension tubes...
peregrine chicks was shot handheld...

Namtaru

27th of June 2008 (Fri), 02:02

http://namtaru.com/uploads/2008/Photography/Hawaii_4185.jpg

doomba

30th of June 2008 (Mon), 18:57

One of my very first shots with this lens. Click to see larger version.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2605057365_2ba1632bde.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2605057365_3667b4452c_o.jpg)

johngpt

30th of June 2008 (Mon), 21:31

Crisp! Wonderful light. Was that morning or evening? I'm guessing morning.

beepclick

30th of June 2008 (Mon), 23:46

From this evening. With XTi - straight from card.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c358/vectorcafe/AIRCRAFT/_1517.jpg

BASmith

1st of July 2008 (Tue), 00:10

not sure your focus is on spot (or you get front-focus)

If thats the only picture from this lens that you can cry about, then I'm doing good.

I was a newb then. Thx for your opinion.

doomba

3rd of July 2008 (Thu), 18:17

My 70-300 IS USM lens makes a lot of noise when in IS mode compared to my 17-55 IS USM lens. Is it normal or is it a malfunction?

funhouse69

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 00:02

My 70-300 IS USM lens makes a lot of noise when in IS mode compared to my 17-55 IS USM lens. Is it normal or is it a malfunction?

This doesn't sound right to me... Mine is VERY quite along with my 24-105 f/4L the only one that I have that is "Loud" is my 70-200 f/2.8L and that is relative but it has a definitive click to it.

doomba

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 05:48

This doesn't sound right to me... Mine is VERY quite along with my 24-105 f/4L the only one that I have that is "Loud" is my 70-200 f/2.8L and that is relative but it has a definitive click to it.
Ok, now I am worried. ;)
When I use 17-55 is IS mode, I actually have to listen to it to hear IS working. I have to bring it close to my ear to hear very little sound. But with 70-300 I can hear it without any effort. Both lenses seem to work without any problems though.

pjfrad

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 05:54

I just received my 70-300, I can't wait to have a play with it. Yay

funhouse69

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 05:58

Ok, now I am worried. ;)
When I use 17-55 is IS mode, I actually have to listen to it to hear IS working. I have to bring it close to my ear to hear very little sound. But with 70-300 I can hear it without any effort. Both lenses seem to work without any problems though.

What body are you using it with, I have a 40D and there was a firmware update something about noisy IS with certain lenses? I don't know if this also applied to other bodies or not.

If that isn't the case and the lens is new I would return it for another one.

Nick_C

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 06:40

It's always very hard to tell when somebody says the IS or focus is very noisy, how noisy is noisy?

My 70-300IS I would say makes a similar IS noise to my 24-105L, it's not loud but you can hear it quietly whirring away.

syntrix

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 11:13

pjfrad

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 11:15

johngpt

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 11:31

Hey everyone,

As said above I just got this lens, however I've noticed that it doesn't come with a hood. Would everyone recommend getting a hood, does it help with using the lens? Also what hoods should I be looking at?

Thanks
Peter
I'd recommend eBay for purchasing hoods for Canon lenses. Much less expensive than trying to purchase elsewhere. I've had good luck with the items arriving intact. They generally ship from China, so take awhile to get to me in the U.S.

Because I use my 70-300 for soccer (football), I find I need the hood. From habit, if the lens goes on, so does the hood.

mn shutterbug

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 16:24

If nothing else, the hood gives it an extra degree of protection.

schultzpaw

4th of July 2008 (Fri), 23:12

I just got this lens and shot kid's reactions at a July 4th Parade. I love its spot-on focus speed and image quality.

Here's a reaction to a Care Bear:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3107/2636489325_b61f1e0204.jpg?v=0

This girl would appreciate some candy:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3257/2637324242_caa81a4ea7.jpg?v=1215200756

Later, she just wants McGruff the Crime Dog to get his fat foot off her sucker:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/2636500807_86aabe3d71.jpg?v=0

This one I'm guessing would rather be anywhere else:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3146/2636503227_e9492426f1.jpg?v=0

It's a surprisingly light lens. The zoom is a little tight but I'll get used to it. Also, it's obvious the IS was a huge help because I know quite a few of my shots would have been blurry without it. Also, I feel I'm a lot less conspicuous than I would be with a big white L lens. Anyway, I'm very happy with my purchase so far!

Emergenic

5th of July 2008 (Sat), 15:00

Got My copy of this lens a few days ago on a rainy day :rolleyes: ....Very Happy with it so far, like others have said generally good image quality, light, compact, and best of all.... Not White!! :-)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/2639940486_b3f811134e_o.jpg

beepclick

5th of July 2008 (Sat), 19:34

I just got this lens and shot kid's reactions at a July 4th Parade. I love its spot-on focus speed and image quality.

Got My copy of this lens a few days ago on a rainy day ....Very Happy with it so far, like others have said generally good image quality, light, compact, and best of all.... Not White

Agree 100%. Whenever I'm going to a new place to shoot and am not sure of the compositions I'll be making, I just take my 70-300 and know it will do a good job with most shots. It doesn't lose much, if any, at 300mm, either.

KingoftheHill

11th of July 2008 (Fri), 04:32

How is the IQ on this lens ?

vs. 55-200mm IS and 70-200 f/4L ?

Nick_C

11th of July 2008 (Fri), 04:46

How is the IQ on this lens ?

vs. 55-200mm IS and 70-200 f/4L ?

IQ is very VERY close to the 70-200L, the L only has a slight advantage at the borders when wide open from what ive seen on tests, but of course the L doesnt do 300mm so its a bit short & it hasnt got IS, a big downside for me.

The new 55-250IS is very good, but it will never work on a FF camera, its EF-S not EF, also it has a plastic mount & build quality is identical to the new 18-55IS, nothing wrong with that, ive tried 2 of those & they are GOOD! but its not as hefty as the 70-300IS in weight & build.

They are all very good, you just have to choose what you like best..

Dockland

11th of July 2008 (Fri), 05:11

Got My copy of this lens a few days ago on a rainy day :rolleyes: ....Very Happy with it so far, like others have said generally good image quality, light, compact, and best of all.... Not White!! :-)

That shot was great! Im concidering to buy this lens instead of 200 f/2.8 prime, but im not sure.. I like the IQ on this baby.

Emergenic

11th of July 2008 (Fri), 05:27

That shot was great! Im concidering to buy this lens instead of 200 f/2.8 prime, but im not sure.. I like the IQ on this baby.

I have no complaints with this lens so far, build quality, IQ, and IS usefulness
have exceeded my expectations. I have some vacation time coming up next week so hopefully I will be able to really test what this lens can really do.

kb100

11th of July 2008 (Fri), 06:12

I just bought one from B&H. It'll get to me by the 16th. Cant Wait!

funhouse69

16th of July 2008 (Wed), 03:31

I really do love this lens
1. Straight out of the camera, no PP, resize only. Shot Hand held, ISO 400, 1/25th, f/5.6 at 300MM
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/332671768_3SHvh-XL.jpg

2. Also straight out of the camera, no PP, resize only. Shot Hand held, ISO 400, 1/30th, f/5.6 at 300MM
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/332671417_oQsLT-XL.jpg

tplyons

18th of July 2008 (Fri), 22:37

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q385/timothylyons/mickey.jpg
Camera Make: Canon

Camera Model: Canon EOS 20D

Image Date: 2008:07:14 17:20:15

Flash Used: No

Focal Length: 300.0mm

CCD Width: 22.48mm

Exposure Time: 0.0010 s (1/1000)

Aperture: f/5.6

ISO equiv: 1600

Exposure Bias: 0.33

White Balance: Auto

Metering Mode: Matrix

Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q385/timothylyons/salesman.jpg
Camera Make: Canon

Camera Model: Canon EOS 20D

Image Date: 2008:07:14 14:09:50

Flash Used: No

Focal Length: 300.0mm

CCD Width: 22.48mm

Exposure Time: 0.013 s (1/80)

Aperture: f/6.3

ISO equiv: 1600

White Balance: Auto

Metering Mode: Matrix

Exposure: Manual

Exposure Mode: Manual

So far I love this thing. The range, the size, the weight, and the IS is wonderful. Quick focusing, and it's not white so no attention drawn. I'm quite fond of this lens!

johngpt

18th of July 2008 (Fri), 23:03

Great shot of the dog. Great expression. I'm guessing close to ten years old?

Must have been getting toward dusk for you to have shot at ISO 1600.

tplyons

18th of July 2008 (Fri), 23:08

Great shot of the dog. Great expression. I'm guessing close to ten years old?

Must have been getting toward dusk for you to have shot at ISO 1600.Actually, Mickey's just turned four. He's rather calm for his age. Thanks for the good words.

Actually, I was just shooting indoors when I let the dog out. Popped on the 70-300 and forgot to change the ISO for outdoors. I'm a dummy... photo's a bit grainy, but not bad.

johngpt

18th of July 2008 (Fri), 23:17

Actually, Mickey's just turned four. He's rather calm for his age. Thanks for the good words.

Actually, I was just shooting indoors when I let the dog out. Popped on the 70-300 and forgot to change the ISO for outdoors. I'm a dummy... photo's a bit grainy, but not bad.
That 20D is awesome. Can't see excessive grain in the post.

AlexinS.A.

19th of July 2008 (Sat), 00:10

Hey everyone,

As said above I just got this lens, however I've noticed that it doesn't come with a hood. Would everyone recommend getting a hood, does it help with using the lens? Also what hoods should I be looking at?

Thanks
Peter The Canon hood here in South Africa is about U.S.$90.00 and a complete rip off. I found a generic hood from a local online site for less than $10.00, made of rubber on a metal mount which screws into your filter thread. Works Great!

johngpt

19th of July 2008 (Sat), 00:42

The Canon hood here in South Africa is about U.S.$90.00 and a complete rip off. I found a generic hood from a local online site for less than $10.00, made of rubber on a metal mount which screws into your filter thread. Works Great!
I've been getting my hoods through eBay. Usually ship out of China. They've been the Canon hoods, at much less expense, even with the shipping.

The site you've used sounds interesting, might you post the link to that site?

lukeap69

19th of July 2008 (Sat), 02:15

I tried this one in a promotional concert in one shopping centre and I was at the back. Amazingly, even at the indoor lighting conditions, most of my shots (say 95%) are acceptable. Nice AF, and IS works.

Sorry for the image quality. I just downloaded this from my multiply account 'coz I am lazy to resize the original. :)

AlexinS.A.

19th of July 2008 (Sat), 03:16

I've been getting my hoods through eBay. Usually ship out of China. They've been the Canon hoods, at much less expense, even with the shipping.

The site you've used sounds interesting, might you post the link to that site? Here is a link to the site for anyone in South Africa. My brother in law has used them and he is super demanding , but recommends them. They have some interesting stuff and I am thinking of getting their battery grip for my 400D which has a rechargeable built in battery that claims 2000 shots from one charge. http://www.camerastuffshop.co.za/shop/

mbscad

19th of July 2008 (Sat), 09:24

Here's one that I took with the 70-300IS,
Tornado F3s
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2659355054_d1e56df1eb_b.jpg

johngpt

19th of July 2008 (Sat), 09:56

Here is a link to the site for anyone in South Africa. My brother in law has used them and he is super demanding , but recommends them. They have some interesting stuff and I am thinking of getting their battery grip for my 400D which has a rechargeable built in battery that claims 2000 shots from one charge. http://www.camerastuffshop.co.za/shop/
Thank you!

johngpt

19th of July 2008 (Sat), 10:40

Here's one that I took with the 70-300IS,
Tornado F3s
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/2659355054_d1e56df1eb_b.jpg
Nice capture. They must have just been breaking the sound barrier. There's that condensation cloud at the fuselage on some of them. Astronomy Picture of the Day once had an amazing photo of the entire ring of condensation around the fuselage of a jet breaking the mach barrier.

johngpt

19th of July 2008 (Sat), 10:50

I'd kept the APOD photo and caption as a Word file from years ago, so was able to find its url.

Since the photo isn't mine, I'm posting the APOD link.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030504.html

Hardcore

25th of July 2008 (Fri), 01:25

They aren't breaking the sound barrier. Just condensation most likely caused by the low pressure area on top of the wing cooling the moist air to the dew point and hense forming fog.

Great pic otherwise.

Srdjan

3rd of August 2008 (Sun), 18:14

300mm ; 1/500 ; f8 ; ISO400 just cropped for better composition no PP

And 100% sample

I love this lens :)

Max F

3rd of August 2008 (Sun), 23:16

Nice job! Thats a difficult one to get the exposure right. White bird and a dark background.

Emergenic

4th of August 2008 (Mon), 18:26

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3104/2733183836_4985237f57_o.jpg

Srdjan

4th of August 2008 (Mon), 18:38

Thx Max,

Now I see, as you mentioned, that compensation on this one is 0.00ev. I have better results on some other shots with -0.33ev I think...
I'll put some more pic's.

actorlife

7th of August 2008 (Thu), 22:31

I have alot of love for this lens. Here a couple of shots I took this year:

Brian Mcknight
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/ActorJLB/Canon2412-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/ActorJLB/Canon2323.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/ActorJLB/Canon2311.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/ActorJLB/Canon2453.jpg
Rick Springfield
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/ActorJLB/Canon2212.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/ActorJLB/Canon2160.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/ActorJLB/Canon2226.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/ActorJLB/Canon2178.jpg

gef

19th of August 2008 (Tue), 12:15

I generally use my Sigma for shots like this..... But I was playing around and I got:

http://static.zooomr.com/images/5634818_5a96734d65.jpg (http://static.zooomr.com/images/5634818_5a96734d65_b.jpg)

Probably could use a little more sharpening, but....

Thaifood

19th of August 2008 (Tue), 13:14

wow all ur shots are amazing! shows how bad my skills are but here goes :)
picture 1: iso 400 1/125s f5.6 210mm
picture 2: iso 800 1/320 f5.6 300mm

funhouse69

22nd of August 2008 (Fri), 04:47

I really love the length of this lens especially on a crop body! Because of that I find myself reaching for this much more than my 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

Here's a couple of moon shots I've taken over the last week.

These were both taken hand held, Shot RAW, Cropped and only a little DPP Sharpening
1. ISO 100, 1/125th @ f/5.6
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/355276242_BKqLP-XL.jpg
2. ISO 800, 1/160 @ f/7.1
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/356499844_97qPw-XL.jpg

mizouse

22nd of August 2008 (Fri), 20:03

yup, i kind of wish i kept mine because i do miss the extra 100mm.

funhouse69

24th of August 2008 (Sun), 00:44

Here's another on from a few minutes ago... It's been a great week here weather wise. Now I wish I had an even longer lens.

ISO 200, f/7.1 @ 1/125th - 100% Crop and a little sharpening with DPP
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/357697854_PDc87-XL.jpg

johngpt

24th of August 2008 (Sun), 00:53

Wow. Now I'll have to try with mine. Hadn't thought the 70-300 would have done so nicely.

Thank you for sharing these.

Namtaru

27th of August 2008 (Wed), 01:40

I love my 70-300, I don't know why I keep getting the urge to trade it in for an F4L :(

http://namtaru.com/pics/albums/Vacations/Portland/IMG_5905.jpg

http://namtaru.com/uploads/2008/Photography/BA01.jpg

http://namtaru.com/uploads/2008/Photography/Hawaii_4185.jpg

http://namtaru.com/uploads/2008/Photography/eclipse_1.JPG

funhouse69

27th of August 2008 (Wed), 02:37

In my case I bought the 70-200 f/4L IS Lens which was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned but returned it for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Meanwhile I happened to pick up a 70-300 IS used off Craig's List for a really good deal.

I love the extra length of the 70-300 this lens especially with a Crop Body. I don't know what I am going to do when I get a Full Frame Body. Actually I will more than likely keep a Crop body as well.

Since then I think I have used my 70-200 only a few times but will more than likely never sell the 70-200 as it is an awesome lens as well and my goto lens for any kind of portrait work I do.

I love my 70-300, I don't know why I keep getting the urge to trade it in for an F4L :(

amadain

27th of August 2008 (Wed), 17:17

These photos have been cropped, don't have the originals sorry!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3278/2800757117_2c01c51f4b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bestphotgrapherever/2800757117/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3087/2801520258_d744a4dfb7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bestphotgrapherever/2801520258/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3249/2801293901_88f687669c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bestphotgrapherever/2801293901/)

fz_za

30th of August 2008 (Sat), 11:56

amadain, the colours in that last shot are beautiful - well done!

GarryF

31st of August 2008 (Sun), 14:30

Caught this out in the bay in Majorca a few months back, billionaire's toy :)

http://oregon.smugmug.com/photos/345608200_KCzaz-XL.jpg

johngpt

31st of August 2008 (Sun), 14:39

Whoa, looks like a cross between yacht and the newer decreased radar reflecting naval vessels.

One heck of an ugly ship.

Skip1967

1st of September 2008 (Mon), 04:37

Thanks to the contributors of this thread. It was the quality of images on here that finally tilted the balance for me to buy this lens and even as a complete rookie to digital photography, I absolutely love it.

These are a couple of what I consider the best images I've taken with it so far. (Since I've got this lens I've started to become addicted to shooting wildlife :p)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3229/2813512529_be55a60af7_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3238/2814382478_4bd7fb7fa3_b.jpg

BlackBolt

1st of September 2008 (Mon), 08:28

Hi all!

First post, so take it easy on me.

I've recently purchased the 450D, and absolutely love it.
i bought the kit lens (18-55) and have been using it as a devcent 'general' indoor lense, but am now looking for something a bit more far reaching.

I've had the 'EF 70-300mm USM IS' recommended to me by a friend, so I tried it out in a local camera shop. I must say I wasn't super impressed with it range, I thought it would 'reach' much further than it did. (would a test inside a camera store give me accurate results?)

I'm mainly looking for a wildlife / scenery lense, as I'm off to thailand in jan.

Is this the lens for me?

johngpt

1st of September 2008 (Mon), 11:40

While at the camera store, the sales person had me hook up the 100-400 lens and then the 70-300 lens to my 40D.

I went outside and found a distant steeple. He had me shoot with both lenses. Yes the 100-400 got me a bit 'closer,' but not much. The over riding impression was how much heavier the 100-400 was than the 70-300.

I had been looking for a lens which would allow me to shoot soccer/football. I went with the 70-300 because of cost, weight, and how nice a lens it is.

If you're going off on holiday, and will be carrying a lens around with you, weight could be a factor in your decision.

DC Fan

1st of September 2008 (Mon), 12:33

I'm mainly looking for a wildlife / scenery lense, as I'm off to thailand in jan. Is this the lens for me?

While the 70-300mm IS is a very good lens, it's best when wildlife is fairly close:

http://www.fansview.com/2008/06-15-2008a-0829.jpg
http://www.fansview.com/2008/06-15-2008a-0018a.jpg
http://www.fansview.com/racing/07042008a0084.jpg

Many wildlife photographers prefer much longer lenses, such as the 600mm f/4 IS. (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) While that lens is far more effective with wildlife at a distance, it's much larger and heavier (and really needs to be used while mounted to a monopod or a tripod for the best results) and costs far more (nearly US $8,000) than the 70-300mm IS.

The previously-mentioned Canon 100-400mm IS (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) might be a better wildlife lens for its longer reach. Other options are the Sigma 50-500mm (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50-500mm-F-4-6.3-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx) and - as odd as it might seem - a 500mm mirror lens, (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/291401-USA/Phoenix_09069_500mm_f_8_0_Mirror_Lens.html) which would the the smallest and lightest long lens you could find, but has other drawbacks.

BlackBolt

1st of September 2008 (Mon), 16:35

Hi,
Thanks for the info, its interesting to see what people think who have actually shot with this lense.

There does seem to be a massive price difference between this and the Canon 100-400 IS L. I may have to see if its possible to rent one in a uk outdoors location, rather than inside jessops (uk camera shop).

It certainly has a much better reach than the kit lens.

The other lens I tried is the Canon 55-250, so I'll go read up on that! :)

DreDaze

4th of September 2008 (Thu), 23:26

couple recent shots with my 70-300...also just got a kenko 1.4 TC and am looking forward to getting out with it to see how well it'll perform...so far just taken a couple test shots of around my apt.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3135/2788019670_9de8976a03_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3035/2788014542_ca739d41b9_o.jpg

BlackBolt

5th of September 2008 (Fri), 04:53

Nice shots in there, I like the first one, its got a nice composition to it.

Are these taken with just the 70-300, and not the Kenko 1.4 attached?

Would be interesting to see the practical difference with and without the kenko attached, and how it affects the 70-300 image quality over distance.

DreDaze

5th of September 2008 (Fri), 10:54

both are just of the 70-300...haven't had any real time to play with the 1.4 yet...but i'll post some when i do

gef

5th of September 2008 (Fri), 11:10

If I recall correctly the auto focus still works with the TC?

newtune3

5th of September 2008 (Fri), 12:30

I sold my 70-200 f4L and kept the 70-300 IS. The L had been back to Conon once and I just never enjoyed it. The 70-300 is a great mid priced zoom. I have some closeups/macro shot of flowers that are full frame and gorgeous. Sharp with nice rich colors. I will keep it until I get the 100-400 L. I love this lens.

DreDaze

5th of September 2008 (Fri), 16:53

If I recall correctly the auto focus still works with the TC?

from my small shots that i did before i know the autofocus does work...it sometimes struggles just using one point...i've actually found that using all-points seems to help it focus faster...again have only used it for maybe a half hour or so...may get out today

DreDaze

5th of September 2008 (Fri), 22:54

so autofocus is definitely slow...also it helps quicken with all points enabled...but sometimes doesn't focus on what i wanted of course...still found that i got better results than one focus point...here's a couple samples...not bad if you ask me, still think i can improve upon with practice hopefully...also a 100% crop
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/2831451023_92407cc85a_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/2832281426_2b3cfb521e_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2831448277_3bf8a5398c_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3077/2831454043_c548bb4807_o.jpg

Photo_Rebel

5th of September 2008 (Fri), 22:57

Just curious... Has anyone here used this lens in a wedding and would you care to share your shots? Thanks!

BlackBolt

6th of September 2008 (Sat), 17:23

Some nice shots there, using the tc doesn't seemed to have affected the focus at all.

Interesting what you mention about the single/multi focus points too, not something I'd considered over that sort of range.

Fred Meebley

7th of September 2008 (Sun), 16:19

Hi all,
My wife bought me this lens a few years ago. It has been great for daylight, outdoor shots and some indoor candids. I have a hard time getting close enough for bird photos. This wild mustang let me approach it and steal a few shots.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2024/2123262200_4e6110c69b.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2024/2123262200_6f0820557d_o.jpg)

johngpt

7th of September 2008 (Sun), 16:37

I've been using this lens since April, primarily to shoot soccer/football.

Branched out this last week.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2832362533_5ef402e664_b.jpg

Manually focusing, using the 40D's live view. Av, f/18, 1/10sec, ISO 200. Lens at 160mm.

I've liked this lens, but the barrel extends during focusing, and it doesn't focus quite fast enough for the sports action of soccer/football. It tends to 'hunt,' and the moving of the barrel makes it difficult at times to get the focus point on the moving player. All in all, I get quite a few shots that are 'keepers.'

BTW, no unsharp mask on this image. Just a smidge of a Levels adjustment layer for the mid-tones.

funhouse69

8th of September 2008 (Mon), 21:24

Couple more moon pics from a few minutes ago.

http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/368732065_rjR3L-XL.jpg

http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/368732105_8Pauv-XL.jpg

LeeSC

11th of September 2008 (Thu), 19:07

I have a few buddies who swear by this lens so I recently sold my 55-250 to move on to this lens. As a 24-105 stays affixed to my camera, I really didn't need the 15mm on the wide end while the 50mm on the long end is nice. I looked at the 100-400mm but didn't really wanna go with something that big/ heavy.

Once mine arrives from a fellow POTNer I will post some shots!

ALSO, I really wish Canon would look at making a L quality lens with more reach than the 70-200 but not a drastic as the 100-400.

funhouse69

11th of September 2008 (Thu), 20:17

I took this about 10 minutes ago... I am thinking about adding a Kenko 1.4 to this lens. Anyone have any experience with it?
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/370673764_NkLYF-XL.jpg

johngpt

11th of September 2008 (Thu), 20:34

I believe you'll come across previous posts in this thread which mention the kenko 1.4, and if I remember correctly, it works well with this lens. I don't recall if that includes autofocus, or if those using the kenko were just manually focusing. But I do recall it being referred to.

BTW, these lunar photos of yours are outstanding. Have you been able to capture any with nearby clouds?

funhouse69

11th of September 2008 (Thu), 20:50

I didn't even think of searching just this thread. I did and there are some posts. I will have to go through them.

Thanks for the compliment - I've only been taking moon pics for the last couple of weeks and with the exception of the first picture I took its been either crystal clear out or complete cloud cover. I am going to keep up with it though so more will come.

If anyone is interested here's my "Moon Gallery"
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/gallery/5765743_BeYhc#353273077_ZPMTq

I believe you'll come across previous posts in this thread which mention the kenko 1.4, and if I remember correctly, it works well with this lens. I don't recall if that includes autofocus, or if those using the kenko were just manually focusing. But I do recall it being referred to.

BTW, these lunar photos of yours are outstanding. Have you been able to capture any with nearby clouds?

johngpt

11th of September 2008 (Thu), 21:14

Nice gallery. I really like the shots of the moon at half-moon, numbers 8 through 10. The shadows at the terminator line seem to enhance the texture and detail.

DreDaze

11th of September 2008 (Thu), 21:24

I took this about 10 minutes ago... I am thinking about adding a Kenko 1.4 to this lens. Anyone have any experience with it?

if you look 8 posts before your original you'll see my shots with the 1.4...focusing is slow...but it autofocuses...in my limited experience it works better with all points selected...but i still haven't had enough time to figure it out yet...but it does work

funhouse69

11th of September 2008 (Thu), 21:33

I didn't realize that this was taken with the Kenko, it does look promising. The only reason I think I will be using it will be for things like the moon. Then again I have started to take a liking to wildlife so that could be an issue. Hey can't hurt to pick one up and try it.

if you look 8 posts before your original you'll see my shots with the 1.4...focusing is slow...but it autofocuses...in my limited experience it works better with all points selected...but i still haven't had enough time to figure it out yet...but it does work

I like all of my shots except the full moon. When I took them I didn't take the time to play with the settings since then I've taken more time. You are 100% right in saying that all of the detail is in the shadows which is why I am bummed I missed all of the 1/4 and 1/8th moon but they will be back.

I actually just posted another one in my gallery from tonight about 15 minutes ago.

Nice gallery. I really like the shots of the moon at half-moon, numbers 8 through 10. The shadows at the terminator line seem to enhance the texture and detail.

funhouse69

20th of September 2008 (Sat), 03:06

I got my Kenko 1.4 yesterday. I took pics of the moon last night and tonight with it on my 70-300mm. I'm pretty impressed with the IQ

These are both 100% Crops
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/375411280_dQcMV-XL.jpg

http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/376071361_Z4wRf-XL.jpg

funhouse69

6th of October 2008 (Mon), 05:15

Here's another one taken last night with my 70-300 and Kenko 1.4
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/387431205_kWrPA-XL.jpg

amadain

13th of October 2008 (Mon), 10:45

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3254/2934800415_71b62a1d0d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bestphotgrapherever/2934800415/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2938431542_ac2390e94a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bestphotgrapherever/2938431542/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3246/2935075737_48f6325368_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bestphotgrapherever/2935075737/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3203/2935583940_e425c5ce0c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bestphotgrapherever/2935583940/)

Crazyone

22nd of October 2008 (Wed), 23:53

I have had the lens for about a day, and am already impressed. I took this pick probably a tad too close, but the sharpness really was amazing to me (especially in lower light and unsteady hand (why I bought IS) I need to learn what you guys are saving these as, because compressed they just don't do it justice.

http://www.svtparts.com/mypics/Picture%20011b.jpg I got alot more I will post once I find a good format/quality to save them as, if anyone has a suggestion let me know!

B

Emergenic

23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 15:59

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/2967760378_33a1d151c7_o.jpg

johngpt

23rd of October 2008 (Thu), 22:35

Emergenic, outstandingly lit.

scrumpy

25th of October 2008 (Sat), 01:48

Had the 70-300 for some time now - it's great for close-work too :D

p360

28th of October 2008 (Tue), 20:52

Had the 70-300 for some time now - it's great for close-work too :D

Gorgeous, scrumpy.

wrxrocks

28th of October 2008 (Tue), 23:50

My IS sounds so loud. It sounds like the gears are grinding when it starts and stops. Do I have a problem and the IS will give up soon?

johngpt

29th of October 2008 (Wed), 00:01

My IS sounds so loud. It sounds like the gears are grinding when it starts and stops. Do I have a problem and the IS will give up soon?

Is it the IS or the ultrasonic motor focusing? If you purchased it at a local shop, bring it by. Even if you didn't, bring your camera body to a shop that sells the lens and ask to try theirs. If the shop's lens sounds very different from yours, perhaps you do have a problem.

Shell1234

2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 05:49

I like this lens so far - now that i am learning to use it - this photo is cropped a bit as well

wrxrocks

7th of November 2008 (Fri), 23:22

my first image using 70-300mm

wrxrocks

7th of November 2008 (Fri), 23:24

one more

johngpt

7th of November 2008 (Fri), 23:36

Nice images. Second one made me chuckle. I used to shoot images of my son's bionicle figures, then photoshop him into the image as if he were interacting with them.

And I had to chuckle at your signature. I guess addiction to sports cars does put photography in perspective!

34Ford

10th of November 2008 (Mon), 13:25

Could someone tell me what to look for on this lens to tell if its US or import.
I see good prices but dont know how to spot a import, however not all the pics of them is clear enough to tell.

EDIT: Well B&H says theres no physical difference in the lens itself. Just rebates and warrantys.

funhouse69

10th of November 2008 (Mon), 13:53

Here's a couple of pics I took recently with my copy of this lens

1.
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/413028993_kzBQT-XL.jpg
2.
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/413028412_dPyv3-XL.jpg
3.
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/413026355_4M2zX-XL.jpg
4.
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/413021991_UHNv6-XL.jpg

wrxrocks

11th of November 2008 (Tue), 23:17

screxer

12th of November 2008 (Wed), 21:30

One of these just arrived this afternoon along with a couple of other lenses and I'm more than impressed....It's MUCH sharper than my "old" Sigma 28-300 (I put old in parantheses because I've have it less than a month...haha!) This is a cropped image with some very light processing of the moon taken a few minutes ago. It was shot at ISO 200, 300mm, f/5.6, for 1/1000 sec. Not the best moon shot, but the best I've been able to get so far (couple of telescopes included) and this was done on a monopod:

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j157/screxer/IMG_0881.jpg