Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

[johngpt]

f/8 is the sweet spot (not sure how you even get to f/9).

I've been real pleased with my copy. Check out my flickr link if you want to see some pics. Unfortunately, after Christmas I'm going to send in into Canon for repair. Its suddenly become vary soft at 300mm with some strange haloing especially with with anything white. I think something is out of alignment.
Bummer about the softness and halo. Hope it's fixed soon.

[chemosabe]

great lens for the price. Here's a few taken in the last week of some watersports...

210mm F7.1 1/1000 ISO200
http://www.walles.co.uk/gallery/AUH_XMAS/cyril_sunset.jpg

105mm F8 1/1000 ISO 200
http://www.walles.co.uk/gallery/AUH_XMAS/luc_tweaked.jpg

300mm F6.3 1/1250 ISO200
http://www.walles.co.uk/gallery/AUH_XMAS/luc_corniche_bg.jpg

[bob_r]

My grandson shot this Vette in the fog with my 30D while I was driving him to school one morning.
The IS seems to be working. 1/50s f/4.5 at 100.0mm iso400
http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/105915191.jpg

[u.k]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3267/2899157712_198139aa00.jpg

Take a look at large format: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3267/2899157712_198139aa00_b.jpg

[Eagleye]

Just picked up my first DSLR the Canon Rebel XS, upgrade from a Pentax W30 waterproof camera. Which will still get some use for underwater photography and unfavorable weather conditions. Here's a picture I took handheld with the lens at the 300mm setting from aproximately the minimum focusing distance at ISO 800 1/160 f/5.6 w/flash. So far I am very happy with the camera, kit lens and especially this one.
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g134/_Eagleye_/123008_1536.jpg

[Eagleye]

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g134/_Eagleye_/123008_1540_email_edited-1.jpg

Same settings as above

[ernst_blofeld]

70-300 IS with 1D classic, back from the 2007 Neste Oil Rally Finland:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3139/2806802512_a64a583460_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3090/2805954199_4cbf59ffc5_o.jpg

[Eagleye]

Taken handheld ISO 1600 1/160 300mm

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g134/_Eagleye_/IMG_0822_daylight_convert_edited-2-.jpg

[LordBrian]

Here is my first attempt, cannot wait for the weekend to get out and fire off a few shots.

http://www.depicus.com/images/450d/IMG_1196small.jpg

[screxer]

Both of these were taken with a 50D. Both are ISO 1600, 300mm, f/6.3, 1/400 sec.

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j157/screxer/IMG_0442.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j157/screxer/IMG_0610.jpg

[LordBrian]

Loving this lens

http://www.depicus.com/images/450d/IMG_1942small.jpg

[DreDaze]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3505/3211574979_d016148da0.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/algregoire/3211574979/sizes/l/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3412/3211583287_e395f8112c.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/algregoire/3211583287/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

[larson59]

This lens, along with going digital right before my trip, was the best investment I made before going to Africa. All below are handheld, sometimes in a running vehicle.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_7OuW4xBZFek/SLNlm7SJabI/AAAAAAAABjM/zlozvRl1hUw/s720/DPP_005.JPG

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_7OuW4xBZFek/SLNl684bg0I/AAAAAAAABl0/RHfUzo0X07w/s512/DPP_0015.JPG
^Found this big guy just before dawn, so shutter speeds were down to 1/15 and 1/30... without IS, no way this would have been possible.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_7OuW4xBZFek/SLNke_TVsuI/AAAAAAAABbQ/lQM6UxE-3ek/s720/DPP_007.JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_7OuW4xBZFek/SLGneeOq8kI/AAAAAAAAAzo/dKeHt6Old7w/s512/DPP_53.JPG

All at a price and weight that makes it more affordable and portable than it's bigger L cousins. I absolutely love this lens.

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

Here are some of mine....first is original from camera, second processed:

Gary W.:cool:

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

A couple more...

Gary W.

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

Last two.

Gary W.

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

The first is the original straight from the camera at a distance of roughly 100 yards. Second is the crop my wife uses as the background on her laptop.

Gary W.

[LordBrian]

Hey all,

The first is the original straight from the camera at a distance of roughly 100 yards. Second is the crop my wife uses as the background on her laptop.

Gary W.

Very well shot, knowing how hard it is to get birds in flight that clear, well done.

[DreDaze]

Hey all,

The first is the original straight from the camera at a distance of roughly 100 yards. Second is the crop my wife uses as the background on her laptop.

Gary W.


what kind of filter do you have on the lens?...it seems to be killing any contrast...makes it all a little dull in my eyes

[LordBrian]

"My Blue Tit..."

Shot at 300mm with a x2 Kenko teleconverter

http://www.depicus.com/images/450d/IMG_4443.jpg

[Gary W.]

what kind of filter do you have on the lens?...it seems to be killing any contrast...makes it all a little dull in my eyes

Hey all,

I just have a cheap UV filter and the lens hood on the end of the lens, that's it. The weird thing about the coastal area around here is the sky, even on a clear day, is kind of a gray color close to the horizon. Not much I can do to change that.:cry:

Gary W.

[DreDaze]

"My Blue Tit..."

Shot at 300mm with a x2 Kenko teleconverter

http://www.depicus.com/images/450d/IMG_4443.jpg

nice shot...did you have to use manual focus?

Hey all,

I just have a cheap UV filter and the lens hood on the end of the lens, that's it. The weird thing about the coastal area around here is the sky, even on a clear day, is kind of a gray color close to the horizon. Not much I can do to change that.:cry:

Gary W.

i'd toss it...it seems to be doing more harm than good in my opinion...

[LordBrian]

nice shot...did you have to use manual focus?

Yes you have to manual focus which takes a bit of getting used to. I shot on a monopod to get it a bit steadier and it was only about 8 feet away.

For fast movers it would take a lot of practice to use manual focus but for the odd time these things stand still it is fine.

[funhouse69]

I know you are talking about using this lens with a Kenko 2x which I don't have but my 70-300 auto focuses with my Kenko 1.4 until I just about the end of the zoom (maybe 280mm) then it stops. One I hit that spot no workie, back it off just a touch and it works again (Center Spot Only).

Does your set up focus at all?

[LordBrian]

I know you are talking about using this lens with a Kenko 2x which I don't have but my 70-300 auto focuses with my Kenko 1.4 until I just about the end of the zoom (maybe 280mm) then it stops. One I hit that spot no workie, back it off just a touch and it works again (Center Spot Only).

Does your set up focus at all?

Don't have it here but I think it did focus at 70mm (not 100% sure so don't quote me), I was thinking the 1.4 would be next on the list and I could use that for wildlife.

The 2 I am going to use for moon shots and anything that doesn't move. Just ordered a tripod as trying to get a stable shot at 300mm is hard work.

[DreDaze]

I know you are talking about using this lens with a Kenko 2x which I don't have but my 70-300 auto focuses with my Kenko 1.4 until I just about the end of the zoom (maybe 280mm) then it stops. One I hit that spot no workie, back it off just a touch and it works again (Center Spot Only).

Does your set up focus at all?


i can get my combo to autofocus...but i don't use the center point, as it seems to have the most difficulty...you should try the other points to see if it works...i'm going to try to back it off a bit as you've suggested too

[LordBrian]

I know you are talking about using this lens with a Kenko 2x which I don't have but my 70-300 auto focuses with my Kenko 1.4 until I just about the end of the zoom (maybe 280mm) then it stops. One I hit that spot no workie, back it off just a touch and it works again (Center Spot Only).

Does your set up focus at all?

Sorry been a few days but now fully tested.

It will AF at 70mm
It sometimes AF at 100mm but really needs light
Anything over 100 is a no go.

Once past 200mm and trying to AF it will error the camera and only comes back when you turn the camera off.

Not something I would use while out walking about but I have a bird feeder outside and a tripod so manual focus on the feeder and use the cable shutter to shoot when the birds get close.

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

Just a couple more I'd like to share.

Gary W.

[DreDaze]

gary are you still using that cheap UV filter?


a couple of recent shots:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3465/3236270480_349bff9a2c_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/algregoire/3236270480/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3239976320_f88ba0f846_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/algregoire/3239976320/in/set-72157613206678289/)

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

The UV filters were on for these pictures, as they were taken @ 1 week ago, before I read the post about the filters. I haven't had a chance to get out lately with the latest rains that have come through our area.

Gary W.

[versedmb]

Hey all,

The UV filters were on for these pictures, as they were taken @ 1 week ago, before I read the post about the filters. I haven't had a chance to get out lately with the latest rains that have come through our area.

Gary W.

Be careful about the garbage that people post about UV filters degrading IQ. All of these shots where taken with my 200 f/2.8 and this $10 S&W UV filter...(you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for a decent UV filter)...

http://cgi.ebay.com/77MM-UV-FILTER-NEW-S-W-BRAND_W0QQitemZ390031233398QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCame ra_Filters?hash=item390031233398&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C 240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50

I've put many small scratches in UV filters over the years that would have reduced the value of my lenses tremendously.



http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/468342963_iY7w3-L.jpg





http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/470903482_bCdrD-M.jpg




http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/459260253_A7LfR-L.jpg




http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/457946349_6Ypry-M.jpg



http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/468342957_V69QU-L.jpg

[DreDaze]

Be careful about the garbage that people post about UV filters degrading IQ. All of these shots where taken with my 200 f/2.8 and this $10 S&W UV filter...(you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for a decent UV filter)...

http://cgi.ebay.com/77MM-UV-FILTER-NEW-S-W-BRAND_W0QQitemZ390031233398QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCame ra_Filters?hash=item390031233398&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C 240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50

I've put many small scratches in UV filters over the years that would have reduced the value of my lenses tremendously.


you can honestly say that looking at gary's pictures...that they don't look like they are lacking something?

the moment he posted them i thought something wasn't right...

[funhouse69]

Be careful about the garbage that people post about UV filters degrading IQ. All of these shots where taken with my 200 f/2.8 and this $10 S&W UV filter...(you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for a decent UV filter)...



I couldn't agree with you more... These were taken with my copy of this lens with a $10 Tiffen Filter on it. I have the same Tiffen UV Filters on all of my lenses including all of my L Lenses and I feel that it doesn't make any difference to the IQ.

http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/413026355_4M2zX-XL.jpg

http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/413040334_86MxU-XL.jpg

[versedmb]

you can honestly say that looking at gary's pictures...that they don't look like they are lacking something?

the moment he posted them i thought something wasn't right...

You may be right, there may be some UV filters that really are bad.

But that doesn't mean that an inexpensive UV filter is necessarily one that will degrade IQ.

Check out our own Lensrules test here....

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/uvtest1

The only time I remove my filter is if I'm shooting into the sun and I'm worried about worsening flare with my filter.

[PhatheadWRX]

Here are a few birds from my first weekend with the new 70-300 :D

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/3285110135_d2c023db7f_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/frenchbrown/3285110135/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3167/3285110245_b13f38c883_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/frenchbrown/3285110245/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3285929232_cb5df4f73f_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/frenchbrown/3285929232/)

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

I am still new to the DSLR world. Would exposure compensation make for a loss of perceived contrast?

Gary W.

[johngpt]

Hey all,

I am still new to the DSLR world. Would exposure compensation make for a loss of perceived contrast?

Gary W.
Possibly, especially in the red flower image that you posted.

Some photographers purposely set the camera to be very neutral in the processing of the image during capture. This way the image can be processed later rather than in camera. Others, especially for jpeg capture, prefer some enhancement of contrast or saturation. There's nothing wrong with a neutral capture.

Looking back at your images, other than the reddish flower, the exposures look fine on my computer. Good contrast, saturation, focus. Very crisp.

The red flower looks somewhat washed out. Could be white balance a hair off for the available light. Could be slightly over exposed.

The images of the gulls look great, BTW.

[johngpt]

From this past Sunday, the Tarantula 100 desert race in Alamogordo NM.

The photographer is "Brick" Miller of Alamogordo. He's shooting with an XT. I was roaming around, trying to find a good location from which to shoot my son on his return to the start/finish.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/3288681775_f1cccdd5d4_o.jpg

[Gary W.]

Possibly, especially in the red flower image that you posted.

Some photographers purposely set the camera to be very neutral in the processing of the image during capture. This way the image can be processed later rather than in camera. Others, especially for jpeg capture, prefer some enhancement of contrast or saturation. There's nothing wrong with a neutral capture.

Looking back at your images, other than the reddish flower, the exposures look fine on my computer. Good contrast, saturation, focus. Very crisp.

The red flower looks somewhat washed out. Could be white balance a hair off for the available light. Could be slightly over exposed.

The images of the gulls look great, BTW.

Hey all,

The picture of the flower is the only one that I processed. The rest are straight from the camera, except for the resizing for the web and maybe a zoom/crop. I already know that my processing work needs a LOT of work, and that just confirms it to me.

I had the exposure compensation set at +2/3. I have made an adjustment to it and will try to get some more test pictures so I can see what difference it will make. FWIW, I personally prefer the look of an actual photo vs the processed look. PP has it's place, but I like natural look to photos.

Gary W.

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

I am still learning the correct white balance usage, the red flower was shot with AWB, ISO on auto. I still need a LOT of work.

Gary W.

[funhouse69]

Hey all,

The picture of the flower is the only one that I processed. The rest are straight from the camera, except for the resizing for the web and maybe a zoom/crop. I already know that my processing work needs a LOT of work, and that just confirms it to me.

I had the exposure compensation set at +2/3. I have made an adjustment to it and will try to get some more test pictures so I can see what difference it will make. FWIW, I personally prefer the look of an actual photo vs the processed look. PP has it's place, but I like natural look to photos.

Gary W.

Gary - I am with you man... I shoot RAW these days and use DPP to process / convert my pics... I might tweak things a little in DPP but that is about it. I think I get some great results with this process / method. While I don't plan on going down the photoshop road anytime soon, I know that you can do amazing things with it - To each his own :-)

[PhatheadWRX]

Exposing correctly to the right of the histogram can really help your images, but does take more time to learn, use, and process correctly. Read through these that really help:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

As for protection, I use hoods over UV filters. Hoods offer protection from bumps and scrapes, AND improve the image quality by reducing glare.

[johngpt]

Exposing correctly to the right of the histogram can really help your images, but does take more time to learn, use, and process correctly. Read through these that really help:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

As for protection, I use hoods over UV filters. Hoods offer protection from bumps and scrapes, AND improve the image quality by reducing glare.

Brilliant links. Thank you.

[Eagleye]

ISO 200 f 5.6 1/160

cropped and edited

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g134/_Eagleye_/IMG_1058_LR1_PSE1.jpg


CC welcome

[Emergenic]

...Have not picked this lens up allot lately, just thought I'd give it some luv, and take some images, here's one from today...It's still a great lens!! (-:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3526/3309084093_016621579c.jpg

[johngpt]

Hadn't been using this lens much since getting my 70-200 L, but brought it with me over President's weekend to catch some shots during my son's desert race in Alamogordo.

Here he is rounding one of the last turns at the end of a 50 mile circuit.

That little bit of extra reach with this lens was nice. This shot was cropped considerably, and levels adjusted. No sharpening.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3387/3302251255_720216f8ea_o.jpg

[funhouse69]

Took these at a local Zoo today... I really do love this lens - especially the reach on a Crop Body!!!

These were all shot RAW and converted / Cropped with DPP.

1.
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/481848054_uM9vf-XL.jpg
2.
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/481848265_gfzkE-XL.jpg
3.
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/481848945_URwAT-XL.jpg
4.
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/481849177_EPfhg-XL.jpg
5.
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/481850356_eHjcx-XL.jpg
6.
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/481852045_H65L5-XL.jpg

[johngpt]

fh69, those are outstanding.

[funhouse69]

I've never been to a single Zoo here as an adult and now I've been to two different ones in two weeks. Here's a few of my favorites from this trip.
1/2
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487369334_nfpKv-L.jpg http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487386821_BZvvP-L.jpg
3.
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487374209_54CGj-L.jpg
4.
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487376453_Ef48U-L.jpg
5. I love this but it was shot at ISO 1600 hand held in low light so its a little soft
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487379854_X4Qma-L.jpg
6.My Personal Favorite
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487392841_nvnUn-L.jpg
7.
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487366290_Wy3oZ-L.jpg
8.
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487367341_FRNVX-L.jpg

[pixelbasher]

May sound like a silly question, but if one is after a zoom would one compare this lens to a 70-200 F4L usm non IS for quality of shot?

I only ask as locally the L is only a hundred $ more.
On one hand I like the extra zoom this lens has, it's size, it's a fair bit more discreet than the white one, and of course has IS...... but on the other hand I like shooting motorsports, planes etc and am under the impression the L is faster for focussing (but am prob totally wrong), and assume it's going to have better "L" IQ.......and it's white! :lol:
I have seen some great shots in this thread that I would be more than happy with if they came from my finger, but all things being constant with camera model, settings and focal length (up to 200), which would take a sharper shot?

Or should I pull the pin and spend the extra $700 on 70-200 F4L IS????? Man this is getting frustrating making a decision!! :confused:

BTW, it will be going on a 50D.

Cheers
Paul

Sorry if it's a hijack, but i am taking a punt on one of you having both lenses to directly compare and relate

[funhouse69]

May sound like a silly question, but if one is after a zoom would one compare this lens to a 70-200 F4L usm non IS for quality of shot?

I only ask as locally the L is only a hundred $ more.
On one hand I like the extra zoom this lens has, it's size, it's a fair bit more discreet than the white one, and of course has IS...... but on the other hand I like shooting motorsports, planes etc and am under the impression the L is faster for focussing (but am prob totally wrong), and assume it's going to have better "L" IQ.......and it's white! :lol:
I have seen some great shots in this thread that I would be more than happy with if they came from my finger, but all things being constant with camera model, settings and focal length (up to 200), which would take a sharper shot?

Or should I pull the pin and spend the extra $700 on 70-200 F4L IS????? Man this is getting frustrating making a decision!! :confused:

BTW, it will be going on a 50D.

Cheers
Paul

Sorry if it's a hijack, but i am taking a punt on one of you having both lenses to directly compare and relate

Paul - This question might be better answered in the general lens section but I will take a whack at it.

While I have never had the 70-200 f/4L Non IS I have had the IS Version. I had it for one week, it was RAZOR sharp and lets not forget it is a constant f/4 all the way through. I returned mine and got the 70-200 f/2.8L IS which is also awesome and a constant f/2.8.

The 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS is a great lens but there are a few differences. To me the focus is noticeably slower and it tends to "Hunt" in lower light situations. This doesn't seem to happen with either of the L's I've had. Also the Lens "Grows" When Zooming which could be an issue for some and the front of the lens moves when focusing neither of these happen with their L counterparts.

When it comes to Image Quality I've never shot them in a side by side comparison before but I am thrilled with the IQ of the 70-300 but feel my 70-200 is sharper and maybe a little better color.

At the end of the day I find that for my uses I end up with the 70-300 on my camera more often then my 70-200. The primary reason is simple - Reach, I love the extra reach of this lens and think that the results I've posted here (do a search on my user name to see more) speak for them self. Oh and I don't do Photoshop at all so these are pretty much straight out of the camera.

So this is going to be a decision that only you can answer. I have both lenses and use the 70-300 95% of the time but will NEVER sell my 70-200 as it produces awesome pics when I do portraits or something within that focal length.

Final thoughts - For me IS is without a question needed with longer lenses. But I do not have the steadiest hands and if you are shooting at a high enough shutter speed it won't make as much of a difference.

On more thing, I bought my 70-300 used off Craig's List for a great price. So maybe you can pick one up relatively cheap and see what you think. You can always resell it. That is another great thing about Canon Glass, it tents to hold it value very well.

Feel free to PM me if you have any other questions or if I missed anything.

[pixelbasher]

Thanks so much for your thoughts funhose, I certainly appreciate the inputs. Next step is to go and check them both out at the shop and then make a choice, after some more "umm"ing and "arr"ing !!!

Back to your regular programming, I may very well be back here with some shots of my own :D

[johngpt]

pixelbasher, as funhouse69, I have both the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM, and love them both. For brevity's sake I'll call them the 300 and the 200. The 200 is definitely my 'go-to' lens when I'm shooting fast moving sports. The 300 focusing extends and retracts the lens, making it jumpier and more difficult to lock on target. The 200's internal mechanism locks on amazingly quickly and accurately. If I have time for focusing and need that extra reach, I love the 300. I think its image quality is superb, especially at f/8 or f/9.

I often shoot in low light conditions, with night matches. Can't beat that f/2.8 of the 200!

The 300 is far lighter and when I'm going to be carrying for long duration I'll tend to grab it rather than the 200. For example, this weekend, I'll be shooting motorcycle desert racing. I'll go long periods without shooting, but carrying my kit. I'm bringing the 300.

Oh, to add, I purchased the 300 first, then later saved up for the f/2.8 70-200.

[pixelbasher]

Thanks for the input John. As much as I'd really like to, I can't go for the 2.8 for $ and the shear size, my missus likes to shoot as well, and they are just too heavy and bulky. If I had the money to buy this 300 AND the L I would and cover both bases.
I think i'll end up going for the 70-200L F4L IS.
The lens in this thread is only $100 cheaper than the non IS F4L, and they where the two I was comparing, but I really want the IS so will just have t spend the $. Once I buy a zoom, I won't be able to justify to the treasury that we now need another!

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

I took these at my oldest son's freshman baseball game Saturday. SOOC except for crop/resize.

Gary W.

[runninmann]

Have you done any comparisons with and without the UV filter?

[funhouse69]

Have you done any comparisons with and without the UV filter?

I've been impressed with the IQ of the lens with a Tiffen UV Filter on it so I've never done a comparison without.

[funhouse69]

Speaking of which I took these yesterday with my 70-300 and a CP on for a few of them :-)

http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/494671200_asLiX-L.jpg http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/494671299_ATanM-L.jpg
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/494671470_TpSWM-L.jpg

[Gary W.]

Have you done any comparisons with and without the UV filter?

Hey all,

I did and it didn't seem to make a difference as long as it was clean. (BAD fingerprint, BAD!!)

Gary W.

[DreDaze]

took these yesterday...they're cropped quite a bit...i think the first shows that the bokeh doesn't have to be as ugly as some claim it is

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3382844122_dcccde481f_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/algregoire/3382844122/in/photostream/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3642/3382844842_243bd98ea7_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/algregoire/3382844842/in/photostream/)

[Techuser]

Does anyone have crops using a 2x TC ?

[J1000]

Not a TC shot.

I was on the ground and the insect was on the lower branches of a large oak tree.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/3056760921_c40f982d67_b.jpg

[funhouse69]

These were all taken on Thursday at the EcoTerium in Worcester, MA...

All shot with my Canon 40D with Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/509068910_gjcmF-XL.jpg http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/509074084_eiHPQ-XL.jpg

http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/509073518_vAX7B-XL.jpg

http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/509069382_yCNvy-XL.jpg

http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/509074251_3sM3X-XL.jpg

[dwpolette]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3464541465_147fd00a68_o.jpg

Shot Today on a 5d, 300mm 1/4000 f/5.6 ISO 400
Final Image cropped slightly to remove a post sticking out of the water.

[cfibanez]

Corcovado National Park, Costa Rica, December 2008

300mm 1/640 f/9.0 ISO200

http://zephyr.cmb.ki.se/POTN/IMG_1841.jpg

[DreDaze]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3366/3454175386_37e821de26_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/algregoire/3454175386/?edited=1)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3315/3454202644_3bacbb9f65_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/algregoire/3454202644/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3651/3454232470_721a74319d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/algregoire/3454232470/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3324/3454297018_94605bca7b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/algregoire/3454297018/?edited=1)

[stonyzmom]

I'm letting my girlfriend use this lens right now for baseball season since I bought the 100-400L to use for my son's baseball season. I really can't wait to get it back.

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/3773/1of16.jpg

[cfibanez]

I still do not understand how I managed to get focus on this bird hiding behind the flower.
Taken at 300mm 1/250 f/5.6 near Bahia Drake, Costa Rica.

http://zephyr.cmb.ki.se/POTN/IMG_1795.jpg

[dipps]

two pics i grabbed at the brewer game today, straight from the camera.....

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7846/img1977rsz.jpg
By dynamitejr (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/dynamitejr), shot with Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=Canon+EOS+DIGITAL+REBEL+XSi&make=Canon) at 2009-05-03

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3426/img1975rsz.jpg
By dynamitejr (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/dynamitejr), shot with Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=Canon+EOS+DIGITAL+REBEL+XSi&make=Canon) at 2009-05-03

[sparksdjs]

A B-17, "Liberty Belle", flying over my house today. Tough to shoot from the underside with the brighter sky above.

http://www.pbase.com/sparksdjs/image/112103231/original.jpg

Dave

[johngpt]

Man, I love B-17s. As a kid, they were my favorites.

[grandadraymond]

And from me

[Zephyrize]

Hey guys

I've been looking for a decent not L-moneyblowing telephoto
and now I have to choose between two:

a NEW 55-250 EF-S for 320 CAD (~280 USD) from BHPhoto (Filter and Hood not included)

a USED, 70-300 IS USM for (~520 USD) from local seller (Hood included) (Warranty expired), One year old.

I'm tempted from both... one would give me warranty in case of problem.. the other will let me keep my lens if I switch to full frame later..

Any suggestions?
I contacted the local seller and waiting for his response.

Btw, the pics in this thread is soooo INCREDIBLE :)
Thanks!!!

[funhouse69]

Hey guys

I've been looking for a decent not L-moneyblowing telephoto
and now I have to choose between two:

a NEW 55-250 EF-S for 320 CAD (~280 USD) from BHPhoto (Filter and Hood not included)

a USED, 70-300 IS USM for (~520 USD) from local seller (Hood included) (Warranty expired), One year old.

I'm tempted from both... one would give me warranty in case of problem.. the other will let me keep my lens if I switch to full frame later..

Any suggestions?
I contacted the local seller and waiting for his response.

Btw, the pics in this thread is soooo INCREDIBLE :)
Thanks!!!

This is personal preference I can't really comment on the 55-250 as I haven't used one personally. I can however say that you should be able to do a little better price wise on the 70-300 but to be fair that might only be in the US ???

Also I believe there was an issue with some of these lenses a while back that required service. I don't know if this is something that can be found here or on the Canon website.

With that said I LOVE my copy of this lens and it impresses me each and every time I take it out to places like the zoo or even my local river walk. I've posted many examples in this thread.

[Zephyrize]

I can however say that you should be able to do a little better price wise on the 70-300 but to be fair that might only be in the US ???

Also I believe there was an issue with some of these lenses a while back that required service.

Better price?? Really?
I checked and the best price I found here in Canada retail was 820 CAD (~700 USD)..

And what kind of issue was it?
Will I be able to detect it when I'll go see the seller and test the lens?

[funhouse69]

Better price?? Really?
I checked and the best price I found here in Canada retail was 820 CAD (~700 USD)..

And what kind of issue was it?
Will I be able to detect it when I'll go see the seller and test the lens?

Again I don't know about Canada but I see a used one on this site for $450. They sell new here for $549 (B&H). I got mine off Craig's list for $350 without any box or manual.

The issue was a "Vertical Sharpness Issue" that was address by Canon. I found this link.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922&keycode=2112&id=28468

[Zephyrize]

Again I don't know about Canada but I see a used one on this site for $450. They sell new here for $549 (B&H). I got mine off Craig's list for $350 without any box or manual.

The issue was a "Vertical Sharpness Issue" that was address by Canon. I found this link.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922&keycode=2112&id=28468

Woah niice
thank you for that link
I hope the one I'm looking at is not affected,
and I'll try to negotiate for the price

[runninmann]

Woah niice
thank you for that link
I hope the one I'm looking at is not affected,
and I'll try to negotiate for the priceIf it's truly one-year old, it won't be affected. The portrait orientation issue dates back to 2006 or early 2007 at the latest.

[runninmann]

Yeah, it was '06. Here's one of the threads about it http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=186187&highlight=portrait+orientation


Note this: This phenomenon affects all EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lenses with a "0" or "1" in the third digit of the (8 digit) serial number. Products that have a third digit of "2" or higher in their serial number are not affected.

[Zephyrize]

Yup checked, the number is a 6.

Thanks

[johngpt]

Better price?? Really?
I checked and the best price I found here in Canada retail was 820 CAD (~700 USD)..

And what kind of issue was it?
Will I be able to detect it when I'll go see the seller and test the lens?

Just saw it on Amazon. Had to add it to my cart to see the price, then delete it from the cart. They wanted $523.66 USD for it. Would accessing Amazon from Canada get you to the same offer?

[Zephyrize]

Just saw it on Amazon. Had to add it to my cart to see the price, then delete it from the cart. They wanted $523.66 USD for it. Would accessing Amazon from Canada get you to the same offer?

As I discussed in another thread...
Amazon.ca is too cheap to sell other things than books lol :)

[Zephyrize]

Well
I can say that I'm happy man now :)

Just went into town to close the deal,

we finally agreed upon a final sell price of 550 CAD (~477 USD)
from what I can see, there is no sign of scratch, dust or anything...
this lens is not that heavy, IS is AWESOME, and focus relatively fast

Can't wait till school's finish to go out shooting !

[dipps]

duck pic i grabbed with the 70-300mm

click link
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9562/img2070ajg.th.jpg (http://img7.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img2070ajg.jpg)

[rambusanna]

Again I don't know about Canada but I see a used one on this site for $450. They sell new here for $549 (B&H). I got mine off Craig's list for $350 without any box or manual.

The issue was a "Vertical Sharpness Issue" that was address by Canon. I found this link.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922&keycode=2112&id=28468

I have been looking on ebay for this lens (70-300mm IS) and most of them have a 0 in the third spot of the serial number. What exactly is wrong with these lenses? I read the canon website, but I thought one of you could put it in laymen's terms for me. Thanks.

[Zephyrize]

I have been looking on ebay for this lens (70-300mm IS) and most of them have a 0 in the third spot of the serial number. What exactly is wrong with these lenses? I read the canon website, but I thought one of you could put it in laymen's terms for me. Thanks.

"Some early lenses with serial numbers with a "O" or "1" as the 3rd digit exhibited lower sharpness at the edge of the frame when the camera was in vertical (portrait) operation and the lens was zoomed out to 300mm."

-http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html

Try to search for more recently bought lens and you should be fine.

I'm still experimenting with this lens... I'm having huge difficulty shooting moving subject with Al Servo.. seems it never is able to focus right.

Here are some test shots today, no PP:

@70mm
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/myself-44/IMG_0982.jpg

@100mm
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/myself-44/IMG_0961.jpg

@300mm
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/myself-44/IMG_0978.jpg

100% crop - no sharpening
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/myself-44/IMG_0978-2.jpg

[rambusanna]

How much does IS matter? My hands are pretty sturdy when I take pictures. I guess I'll have to try it out to see? If IS doesn't matter then I can go with the 70-200 f/4 L. Does the 70-300 have focusing problems when using it in sports mode, shooting rapidly?

[Zephyrize]

How much does IS matter? My hands are pretty sturdy when I take pictures. I guess I'll have to try it out to see? If IS doesn't matter then I can go with the 70-200 f/4 L. Does the 70-300 have focusing problems when using it in sports mode, shooting rapidly?

If you have steady hands, you could give it a try for the 70-200. The best way to know is to find a store where you can rent the lens and test it for yourself.
Personally, I think that IS is non-negotiable past 150mm...no need to mention for 300mm!
70-300 have a specific IS function (mode 2) when shooting sport where pan movements are frequent... Haven't tried it yet but the reviews are excellent.

[funhouse69]

I agree that IS in invaluable but I don't feel that I have the steadiest hands. Either way I don't believe that IS will ever hurt image quality. I've used mine in many different settings including some Drag Racing shots and IS has never been a bad thing (and I never switched modes).

[Neilyb]

Just for fun.

http://neilburton.smugmug.com/photos/538424990_3oVLM-O.jpg

[Zephyrize]

Just for fun.

http://neilburton.smugmug.com/photos/538424990_3oVLM-O.jpg

AWESOME ONE!! bw!

why ducks always have this one-legged posture?

[rambusanna]

Just for fun.

http://neilburton.smugmug.com/photos/538424990_3oVLM-O.jpg

bw! Excellent! The background looks oil painted.

[cbacarella]

This was the first time i have shot with this lens and i must say i enjoyed it very much! It was a very overcast day and this lens performed great!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3661/3579141131_2a8617071f.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3351/3579951240_2775c41c12.jpg



.Chris.

[cfibanez]

One from this past weekend taken at Lidingö island.

300mm 1/160 f/5.6 ISO400
http://zephyr.cmb.ki.se/POTN/IMG_2796.jpg

[Inspeqtor]

Took this shot Sunday 5-31-09 with a polarizing filter - resized photo

1/250 f5.6 ISO 400

C&C welcome

370255

[packham]

I heard the front element rotates when focusing. Would it be troublesome using CPL?
Considering this lens.

[Inspeqtor]

I heard the front element rotates when focusing. Would it be troublesome using CPL?
Considering this lens.

Yes the front element does rotate while focusing. You need to focus first then rotate the CPL to get the best contrast. It worked fine for me.

[cbacarella]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3611/3596872306_897386eb99_b.jpg

I know...its missing the dog thats attached to the leash..haha..

[johngpt]

Sure, we believe there's a dog...

[funhouse69]

Well its a lucky dog :-)

Nice Shot!!!

[cfibanez]

Got this birdy in a nice light ...

300mm 1/500 f/5.6 ISO400
http://zephyr.cmb.ki.se/POTN/IMG_4659.jpg

[Neilyb]

More for fun...

http://neilburton.smugmug.com/photos/538431055_2QkqE-O.jpg

http://neilburton.smugmug.com/photos/538424989_PWyPd-O.jpg

[cfibanez]

Marenco Beach, Costa Rica

300mm 1/640 f/9.0 ISO200
http://zephyr.cmb.ki.se/POTN/IMG_1841.jpg

[cfibanez]

Which 1.4x TC for the EF 70-300 IS?

I understand that the Canon 1.4x TC does not work with the 70-300 IS. But it appears that Kenko 1.4x TC may work (with some limitations in AF according to earlier posts in this thread). My questions are:

1. Has anyone tested the Tamron, Kenko or both TCs with this lens? How do they compare?
2. Any other TC that is compatible with this lens?

Many thanks.

[packham]

Could I see a picture with 100% crop taken by this lens on 5D or FF body please? Want to know how it performs on FF. Thanks.

[w7cma]

I am getting this lens tomorrow and the Tamron 1.4 TC a few days later, cant wait to shoot some. I will post some shots with and with out the TC as soon as I can.

[funhouse69]

I have the 70-300 and a Kenko 1.4 TC the lens works fine with Center Point Auto Focus until you get to the very end of the zoom - say about 280mm then you loose auto focus. I've gotten some pretty decent results with it. I haven't tried it with my 5DMK2 as of yet as I've upgraded to a 100-400mm.

Here's a couple of moon shots I took the first on is the 70-300mm alone on my 40D. The second is with the Kenko 1.4TC
Without Kenko TC
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/389098540_UEn7Y-XL.jpg
With Kenko 1.4 TC
http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/389098510_X8iVz-XL.jpg

[cfibanez]

I am getting this lens tomorrow and the Tamron 1.4 TC a few days later, cant wait to shoot some. I will post some shots with and with out the TC as soon as I can.

Thanks for this, look forward to see how it works for you. Bob Atkins was not very enthusiastic about this combo (link here (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_100_400_l_is_review.html)), but he was comparing it to the 100-400L (!) It'd be nice to see how the Tamron compares to the Kenko, which several POTN members have used together with this lens.

[cfibanez]

I have the 70-300 and a Kenko 1.4 TC the lens works fine with Center Point Auto Focus until you get to the very end of the zoom - say about 280mm then you loose auto focus. I've gotten some pretty decent results with it. I haven't tried it with my 5DMK2 as of yet as I've upgraded to a 100-400mm.

Here's a couple of moon shots I took the first on is the 70-300mm alone on my 40D. The second is with the Kenko 1.4TC

Thanks. They look pretty good at that magnification.

[w7cma]

Wahoo! got it a few hours ago, this thing is scary sharp. So far I am blown away, I am going on a shoot tomorrow so I will post some shots. All front and rear focus tests at all focal lengths have come out perfect, I think I got a good one but the proof will be tomorrow hope it doesn't rain.

[Inspeqtor]

Wahoo! got it a few hours ago, this thing is scary sharp. So far I am blown away, I am going on a shoot tomorrow so I will post some shots. All front and rear focus tests at all focal lengths have come out perfect, I think I got a good one but the proof will be tomorrow hope it doesn't rain.


How do you front and rear focus test a lens???? I have this lens but have no idea how to test the front & rear focusing.

Thank you.

[w7cma]

well you can do something like this www.http://focustestchart.com/focus10.pdf I just take a ruler and shoot it at about 45degree angle, focus at say 6" and then see if the 6 is focused or if it is in front or behind the 6. Another test is the battery test, place 3 AA batteries on a table and stagger then so one is in front the next behind and to the right and the next behind the second one and to the right all about 1" apart. Set lens wide open and shoot the middle one, you should see the front and rear equally out of focus and the center one in focus if everything is alright. These are I am sure rough tests but they give you an idea. There is a lot more on the web about this.

[Inspeqtor]

Thank you! I do appreciate you taking the time to tell me how to front/rear focus test a lens. :D

[w7cma]

OK here is the first one on the new lens @300mm I will get better.

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/560598908_9Vjt6-L.jpg

[Inspeqtor]

OK here is the first one on the new lens @300mm I will get better.

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/560598908_9Vjt6-L.jpg

You did good! Very crisp and clear. I do have one question though.... How do you attach the 70-300 lens to the box camera in you avatar? ?

[w7cma]

With a rare Kodak Brownie to EOS adaptor, only few made.

[w7cma]

I am starting to love this lens, these have very little sharpening and no cropping,.

225mm
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/561067240_oZL8H-XL.jpg

100% Crop
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/561691031_3aKuF-XL.jpg

200mm
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/561069538_8pWyP-XL.jpg

115mm
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/561066527_e8V3Q-XL.jpg



300mm
http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/561068758_BFf3z-XL.jpg

[johngpt]

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/561067240_oZL8H-XL.jpg

Dang, if that's not a dinosaur, what is?

[Mikaxel]

This is one of my 1st shots this spring with my brand new 70-300 IS USM.
Just added little bit unsharp mask and lightness, it was quite dark in woods. Pity I've had so little time to use this thing:(.

300mm, F/9, ISO-400

[JS300]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2033/2042464370_c325b34851_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2370/2041663737_0021d01807_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2189/2042463234_0fb9cbcc15_o.jpg

[luvsadog2]

Amazon is presently selling this lens [new] for $519 -- Someone in my photography group moved up to a full-frame Canon and said that he can't use this lens on his new camera, so I'm waiting to hear back from hiim to see if he wants to sell the 70-300mm -- what would be a reasonable price to pay for one that is used, but in good condition?

I'm shooting with an XSi and my longest lens at present is the Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Zoom Lens (non-IS), but I would really prefer having an IS lens and a little longer FL. I also have the Canon EF-S - Zoom lens - 17 mm - 85 mm - f/4.0-5.6 IS USM, Canon 50mm f/1.8 (nifty fifty), Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS, and the kit lens .. would it be a smart move to get the Canon 70-300mm IS and sell the Tamron?

Any recommendations are greatly appreciated, thanks! Carla

[Inspeqtor]

Amazon is presently selling this lens [new] for $519 -- Someone in my photography group moved up to a full-frame Canon and said that he can't use this lens on his new camera, so I'm waiting to hear back from hiim to see if he wants to sell the 70-300mm -- what would be a reasonable price to pay for one that is used, but in good condition?

I'm shooting with an XSi and my longest lens at present is the Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Zoom Lens (non-IS), but I would really prefer having an IS lens and a little longer FL. I also have the Canon EF-S - Zoom lens - 17 mm - 85 mm - f/4.0-5.6 IS USM, Canon 50mm f/1.8 (nifty fifty), Canon 100mm f/2.8 IS, and the kit lens .. would it be a smart move to get the Canon 70-300mm IS and sell the Tamron?

Any recommendations are greatly appreciated, thanks! Carla

Carla,

If your friend is talking about the EF 70-300 IS USM lens, it should indeed work on his camera. It is not an EF-s lens which would not work on a full frame camera.

[LostShootingStar]

Carla,

If your friend is talking about the EF 70-300 IS USM lens, it should indeed work on his camera. It is not an EF-s lens which would not work on a full frame camera.

Right, the EF-s wont work, but the regular EF should http://www.entertainment-place.info/smile/img/2465/o09a0208gstn/POTNsmile.gif
http://www.entertainment-place.info/smile/img/3200/n08d1214eybr/1by1.gif

[luvsadog2]

Carla,

If your friend is talking about the EF 70-300 IS USM lens, it should indeed work on his camera. It is not an EF-s lens which would not work on a full frame camera.

Thanks, Inspeqtor .. I just found that out :p I could have sworn he said he couldn't use the 70-300, but obviously that wasn't he case. Oh well, I'll save my $$ :o)

[luvsadog2]

Right, the EF-s wont work, but the regular EF should http://www.entertainment-place.info/smile/img/2465/o09a0208gstn/POTNsmile.gif
http://www.entertainment-place.info/smile/img/3200/n08d1214eybr/1by1.gif

Thanks for responding, LostShootingStar .. I prefer buying new anyway, so I'll just wait and figure out which lens I want to buy.

[Inspeqtor]

I shot these Sunday of a Turkey Vulture from my back yard. I cropped and resized the photos. C&C welcome!

373589

373590

[Tom H. Photography]

Shot this one by hand at 300mm, f5.6, 1/400 sec. The pigeon is still really nice and crisp. Only a tiny bit of sharpening added in lightroom. Distance was at least 125 meters I think (400 feet).

http://users.telenet.be/tomhenderix/content/bin/images/large/2009_IMG_0770.jpg

[Tom H. Photography]

Some more hand shot pictures at 300mm and cropped.

1.
http://users.telenet.be/tomhenderix/content/bin/images/large/2009_IMG_1108.jpg

2.
http://users.telenet.be/tomhenderix/content/bin/images/large/2009_IMG_1150.jpg

3.
http://users.telenet.be/tomhenderix/content/bin/images/large/2009_IMG_1156.jpg

4.
http://users.telenet.be/tomhenderix/content/bin/images/large/2009_IMG_1039.jpg

[sry407]

Hey folks! This was the first lens I purchased two years ago, and still love it. Especially on a crop body, having this reach is great. I was on the fence between this, or the 70-200mm f/4, but the extra 100mm and IS is what sold me, and I'm still hapy.

Here are a few shots I have been able to get with it...hope you enjoy!

Adam

1.
http://lefthandedimages.com/photos/511719306_3wCqm-M.jpg

2.
http://lefthandedimages.com/photos/519248277_KwkS2-M.jpg

3.
http://lefthandedimages.com/photos/557144876_74pqS-M.jpg

[Tom H. Photography]

Was number three perhaps taken in Verona? Or Trente? I seem to remember that statue somehow...

[sry407]

Was number three perhaps taken in Verona? Or Trente? I seem to remember that statue somehow...

Ooohhh...very close! It's one of the domes to St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice. Nice catch!

[Tom H. Photography]

Ooohhh...very close! It's one of the domes to St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice. Nice catch!

Ah Venice. Been a long time seen I've been there. I knew it had to be somewhere in that region...

[Veemac]

300mm, f5.6, 1/50, handheld. Converted to jpg and minor PP (levels and sharpening) in Photoshop:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3583/3649202549_f7e7c15b80_o.jpg

[Zephyrize]

Moving shots @ 300

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/myself-44/Web-1197.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/myself-44/Web-1223.jpg

still shots @ 300

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/myself-44/Web-1220-1.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/myself-44/Web-1269-1.jpg

[johngpt]

Zephyrize, the hues in your third and fourth images are phenomenal.

[Zephyrize]

Zephyrize, the hues in your third and fourth images are phenomenal.

haha , well
the background sky colour wasn't processed so the sky was really that crazy.
I bumped up the foreground objects colours since the photos were used as 'work-in-progress' shots for a film that a friend of mine is shooting.
so it needed a cinematic mood.
and I do love that style :D

[Iddur]

My first go with my new 70-300. No pp carried out on either. cc welcome.

[Inspeqtor]

My first go with my new 70-300. No pp carried out on either. cc welcome.

I am not a professional by any means but I love the 2nd shot best. Great work!!

[Inspeqtor]

Did this last night. Cropped and sharpened. C&C Welcomed.

376338

[nikhilnh]

This test shot was taken at 240mm, f5.6 and 1/30 s.

I had to get down to the level of the flower to get this shot. I was surprised to see how amazing the IS works.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_A_-CjJa0BhQ/Sk1lRB8YLAI/AAAAAAAABgE/d1ZpHS9V6-o/s800/IMG_1012-p.jpg

[fullcity]

Taken a few hours ago. Can never have enough ducks, right?

No PP, just crops. EXIF intact.

[grandadraymond]

2 From me
http://www.lancashirehobbies.co.uk/galleries/albums/userpics/10003/Male_Bullfinch.jpg

http://www.lancashirehobbies.co.uk/galleries/albums/userpics/10003/Picture_013_resize~0.jpg

[Inspeqtor]

2 From me
http://www.lancashirehobbies.co.uk/galleries/albums/userpics/10003/Male_Bullfinch.jpg



I love the color in this bird! Is this the Robin in the UK?

Great photo!!!!

[grandadraymond]

I love the color in this bird! Is this the Robin in the UK?

Great photo!!!!No its the Bullfinch here is the female not so colourful
http://www.lancashirehobbies.co.uk/galleries/albums/userpics/10003/Female_Bullfinch__.jpg

[leoni]

hello!
which is diference between 200- 300 mm ?

could you please put few examples

thank you

[Inspeqtor]

hello!
which is diference between 200- 300 mm ?

could you please put few examples

thank you

Here is a shot taken with my older 80-200mm lens taken at 200 of the moon.

379390

Here is a shot taken with my newer 70-300 IS lens taken at 300 of the moon.

379391

Hope This Helps

[swampass2]

A couple from this year's Boston Marathon...

3-time defending champ Robert Cheruiyot pulled out of the race right in front of me.
http://www.pbase.com/image/111594341.jpg

And a few little fans...
http://www.pbase.com/image/111594505.jpg

[swampass2]

And one more... I've had this lens for about 4 months now. This was taken on my first day out with it. I was always fond of this one for some reason...

http://www.pbase.com/image/110389345.jpg

[squarelogo]

I was seriously disappointed with this lens when I purchased it. I didn't realize that the lens was not working as intended until I found this thread and saw some of the sample images.. I just got it back from Canon tonight after sending it back for warranty service.

I'm now quite impressed. I shot this pic of my grubby six year old in the backyard at 300mm handheld.

http://squarelogo.smugmug.com/photos/598171011_CC6MW-L.jpg

[fullcity]

I was seriously disappointed with this lens when I purchased it. I didn't realize that the lens was not working as intended until I found this thread and saw some of the sample images.. I just got it back from Canon tonight after sending it back for warranty service.

I'm curious: what were the symptoms of the lens not working properly? And what did Canon do to fix the problem?