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

[vjack]

It dawned on me that it might be a good idea for those of us researching particular lenses to provide links to some of the useful information we've found. Here are links to some excellent review information for those considering this lens:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm
http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/70300is
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294&sort=7&cat=27&page=2
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300is/review.html
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I had almost decided on the 70-200 f/4, but I must admit that I'm now having second thoughts and wondering if the 70-300 IS would be a smarter buy.

[Lightstream]

These are the photos that conclusively prove to me that it's not the hardware, it's the operator: http://www.pbase.com/gschmickle/mn_wildlife_connection

I am absolutely blown away by what he's managed to achieve with it, which will probably be more than I ever do with mine!

[Tess320]

Well for interest sake, I took the following image (100% crop) handheld at 1/60 at 300mm. Normally shots are useable for me way before this point.

http://i.pbase.com/o4/33/617733/1/57138633.100.jpg

And the 25% crop showing the image is perfectly useable, and I could have gotten it down to around 1/30 and still been able to use it...at 300mm!

http://i.pbase.com/o4/33/617733/1/57138629.25percent.jpg

[vjack]

None of the review links I posted mentions problems with the optics of this lens. It appears that the primary issues are poor build quality, zoom creep, the rotating front element, and the portrait issue (which seems to be an issue for some copies but not others).

[Tess320]

I was surprised the build quality was inferrior to the 28-135mm. I would go for another lens if it was very important to someone. It doesn't matter to me so doesn't effect me.

[YARRO]

I'm happy with the lens. Optics are very very good, given the price. No portrait issue with my copy.
However, zoom creep is annoying and some dampening on the focal length ring would have been nice. Apart from that, there's nothing wrong with the build quality. It's not L, but good enough.

[vjack]

I was surprised the build quality was inferrior to the 28-135mm. I would go for another lens if it was very important to someone. It doesn't matter to me so doesn't effect me.

A couple of those reviewing the lens on Fred Miranda mentioned that the build quality was among the worst they've seen from Canon. The 28-135 and a couple other consumer-grade lenses were mentioned, so it seems that you are not alone in your opinion.

[Jack W.]

Bought two of these, one for me and one for my wife.
We're both thrilled with the shots from this lens.
Build quality is just fine; not "L" quality of course, but fine nonetheless.
Jack

[bryan k]

Dolphin in Tahiti

[gbpro1]

There is hardly any pictures on here.. I just wanted to share. I love this lens.. Here is a few examples

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=147453&d=1171512750

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=151224&stc=1&d=1172722861

[Zohar]

Can't view the second image but the first one is great, love the sharpness and perspective, good job.

[aero145]

These are the photos that conclusively prove to me that it's not the hardware, it's the operator: http://www.pbase.com/gschmickle/mn_wildlife_connection

I am absolutely blown away by what he's managed to achieve with it, which will probably be more than I ever do with mine!

It's the operator, yes, but it the image quality also gets better with some sharpening and resizing. ;) I don't like the bokeh.

I wasn't happy with mine... I don't want to use this lens again ever. Maybe I'm too L-addicted?

[purelithium]

These are the photos that conclusively prove to me that it's not the hardware, it's the operator: http://www.pbase.com/gschmickle/mn_wildlife_connection

I am absolutely blown away by what he's managed to achieve with it, which will probably be more than I ever do with mine!

Most of the outstanding shots in that gallery are taken at f/8, where almost any lens will shine. It IS all about the operator, but it's not that hard to get great, sharp shots from a lens if you stop it down a bit...

Check out the "Lynx on the lookout" shot, examine it, and then look at the one beside it "Lynx #4" you can visibly notice better image quality in the Lynx #4 image. The Lookout is softer, less defined. But once he stopped it down to f/8, the fur is more defined and pleasing to look at.

[Double Negative]

This lens seems to be a pretty good alternative to the 70-200mm f/4. What would bother me is the fact that it's parafocal (you have to re-focus after zooming) and that the front element rotates (bad for CPL use). The IS is a plus... But with the new 70-200mm f/4L IS lens out there's another option.

If you have the money, I'd go for the 70-200mm f/4L IS. You'll never regret it.

If you want to travel with the lens, I'd also suggest looking at the DO version - though this lens is not without controversy, either.

If you know the downsides going in, it's not a bad lens. Those wolf/cougar shots are ample proof that this lens can deliver.

[iplayazi]

I really enjoy using this lens and can produce some fantastic shots. I am glad I went with this lens.

First shot taken with this lens on the day I bought it.

http://www.pbase.com/iplayazi/image/75324757/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/iplayazi/image/75324747/original.jpg

[grimreaper]

anymore pics my good people ?

[mrmacca]

heres a couple

153761

153762

[L.Lee]

I have both the (a) EF 28-135mm IS and (b) EF 70-300mm IS. BUild quality is about same. (a) is slightly fatter but shorter, feel heavier in my hand. (b) is long and easy to hold, does not feel the weight so much as (a). Due to the long zoom, the twisting focus need some get use to. My (b) lens is a lot sharper and stablized than (a).
The 300mm long zoom is great for sport and close up (yes close up):)

10D + EF70-300mm IS, F8.0, 1/200, Focal 300mm, Distant 5ft, minor crop, level adjusted, internal flash.
More shots at: http://rku288.smugmug.com/gallery/161159#134999733

Cheers.

http://rku288.smugmug.com/photos/134999733-M.jpg

[L.Lee]

It is hand held

[S.Horton]

The 70-300 gets sharp stopped down a tad; very nice in good light. Excellent value for $.

[nyy]

For an entry level wildlife lens, would you recommend buying this over the f4L? I want something that I can shoot sports with but also take into the woods and get some bird/deer shots. The f4 L is appealing but I'd like the extra 100mm and IS.

[jm4ever]

Nyy

I'm in the same boat as you are and still haven't decided between these two. For wildlife you may have to invest in a 1.4x TC for the 70-200 to get more reach especially for birds.

[nyy]

Nyy

I'm in the same boat as you are and still haven't decided between these two. For wildlife you may have to invest in a 1.4x TC for the 70-200 to get more reach especially for birds.
Yep, but with a TC you sacrifice IQ, and the f4 L loses its aperture advantage. Right now I'm actually starting to lean more towards the 70-300.

[iplayazi]

Here is another shot with this lens.

Shot is full frame taken wide open at 260mm

Todd

http://www.pbase.com/iplayazi/image/69769756/original.jpg

[condyk]

I just picked one up after debating around the 70-200mm IS L 4.0 and Sigma 100-300mm 4.0 EX DG HSM. There are a number of things I know I wopn't like about it, but I will like the IS and hopefully the IQ. It will be used for our Namibia and Botswana trip in August/September and suppliment my 400mm 5.6 L. The latter is inflexible for safari use, but superb when you need 400mm (or 560mm with the TCon). I like the smaller size and black finish of the 70-300mm so I might pick up some nice vandids while I'm there too. Here's hoping it's a good one. I've never been too impressed with the Canon consumer grade stuff!

[dicktay]

You may be interested in the pics here.
All taken with a 350D (Rebel XT) on a tripod with a remote release.
Apertures are from wide open to ~ F32 at all marked focal lengths (70/100/135/200 & 300)
Full size original jpgs are on the site for viewing.

http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photography/Canon/Canon_70-300IS/Canon70-300_IS_Top.htm

Hope this helps.
Richard

http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photography/Canon/Canon_70-300IS/200mm/800/IMG_9160.jpg

[condyk]

Your f8 200mm and 300mm are not right ... I think you mixed some focal lengths up there ;-)

Thanks for the test tho :-)

[dicktay]

@condyk - Thanks, you are right. Give me an hour or so. Will let you know when fixed.

[dicktay]

Fixed now.
Too many pics to look at in Bridge.
Richard

[south_paw]

Grrr. This is agonizing. I'm in a quandary between getting the 70-200 f/4L and the 70-300 IS. Both are in the same price ballpark. The extra 100mm and IS would be nice, but the constant F4, optic quality and build quality of the 70-200f/4L would be nice as well. Most notably, this lens would be used for Rallies (motorsports) typically held at all hours of the day and early evening in the Pacific NW forests on logging roads.

[dicktay]

@South_paw
I have both.
IS will not help with moving objects also you are shooting at a lot smaller apertures with poorer focusing with the 70-300.

For motorsports and possible poor lighting - If 200mm is enough - Then get the 70-200 F4L (it focuses a lot faster although you may want to pre focus in dim light) or even better the 70-200 F2.8 L - It is my lens of choice (F4 L) that I own for shooting Motor Racing (track) events and drag racing if I don't need the extra 100mm (I use them with a Canon 350D (Rebel XT)

You don't say what equipment you have now.
For rallies you may be a lot closer to the forest roads so you may be able to use something shorter and faster (possibly with a flash) so even a 50mm F1.8 would be ok or possible something even faster and or longer.

Hope this helps.
Richard

[dicktay]

@South_Paw.
Even though this is for the UK you may find this thread interesting.
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=292705

[Croasdail]

I have a bunch of big L stuff so I know what a good lens is . But my favorite all around walk around lens was my 70-300 IS. No, it wasn't perfect. But as a compromise for general purpose, it fit the bill nicely. I was stupid enough to have sold the lens on ebay because I listened to too many people who told me it wasn't any good. That was my mistake. I plan on buying another again before the summers travel season starts up. It is plenty good for your 11x14 prints, and yes, the IS pays off for those late day or early morning scenic shots. I liked it. I think you will too as long as your emphasis is creating images to be printed rather then to be looked at 200% magnification on screen.

[Dunlop]

I have been mulling over selling this lens, and going for a 70-200 F4 L. I don't really need the IS(but i must admit, it does work well). Anyway, This was shot this morning.

resized for web, A little sharpening in Canon DPP. 300mm, 1/320, F6.3, ISO 200

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y229/Dcoggs/IMG_2268w2.jpg


100% crop, resized for web, sharpening in DPP


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y229/Dcoggs/IMG_2268w.jpg

[twebster]

I bought the 70-300mm IS lens last year and used it for about 2 months. The IQ was very, very good for a consumer grade lens but the build quality is not even good compared to Canon's other consumer grade lenses. I put about 3,000 images through my copy of the 70-300mm IS lens (it was my primary dragonfly photography lens) and had to send it back to Canon to have the internal element supports replaced. I just flat wore it out in that 2 months. I have since replaced it with the 300mm f 4L lens as my primary dragonfly lens. The results from the 300mm f 4L lens are sharper and I'm not worried about wearing out this lens anytime soon. If you only use this lens for occasional use it is a fine lens yielding good IQ. If you plan on using it a lot then you are better off buying a 300mm f 4L or the 70-200mm f 4L lenses, IMHO.

[jm4ever]

Dicktay

Since you have both lenses I was wondering if you could take a few shots of a few things at 70mm wide open and some shots around 200mm to compare the two images.

Also just how good is the IS? I know that it doesn't freeze fast moving subjects but what if someone or something is walking in lower light. Would they be blurred if shooting at 1/60 of second?

The decision between these two lenses is giving me a headache.

Thanks
James

[trhoppe]

I know its twice the $$, but I settled for spending the dough and picked up a 70-200F4IS along with a 1.4tc. The tests by lightrules comparing those two combos steered me to the 70-200. The 70-200F4IS beat the 70-300 up and down, even with the 1.4tc. The F4IS seems to be considered pretty much Canon's sharpest zoom.

I figured the extra $600 for lots of sharpness and less of a loss in resale value was worth it. I figured I would lust after the red L if I go the 70-300 anyways :)

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/73v72f4is

-Tom

[Mork350D]

Dicktay



Also just how good is the IS? I know that it doesn't freeze fast moving subjects but what if someone or something is walking in lower light. Would they be blurred if shooting at 1/60 of second?


James

Hope im understanding the question right, what you have to remember is the IS will compensate for your movement but not for the subject you are shooting, you still have to have a fast enough shutter speed to stop the movement of the subject. Hope that makes sense.

[jm4ever]

Hope I'm understanding the question right, what you have to remember is the IS will compensate for your movement but not for the subject you are shooting, you still have to have a fast enough shutter speed to stop the movement of the subject. Hope that makes sense.

Yes I guess it does. It sounds like IS will only help with stationary objects

Thankyou

[buddy4344]

I have the 70-300 IS and also the 100-400L IS. Both are great in good lighting. I like that the 70-300 is lightweight for going to kids soccer/field hockey, etc. vs. the huge 100-400 weight. The 70-300 will also autofocus in good lighting with the Kenko 1.4x whereas the 100-400 will not. I will shoot a few shots tomorrow morning (before work) at 100 and 300 wide open with each for comparison. Can't do it tonight due to schedule conflict.

[dicktay]

@ jm4ever

Here are some for the 70-300 IS.
Full size jpg straight out of the camera are on my site:

http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photography/Canon/Canon_70-300IS/Canon70-300_IS_Top.htm

I havn't tried it for the 70-200 F4 L yet. If the weather is ok today I can make some test shots and have them up latter this evening - It is now ~6:35 AM where I live. (Sydney Australia).

As far as IS goes I think it is great. I have two IS lenses - the 70-300 and the 17-85 IS. Here are some early tests I did with ISO 1600 and hand held at a railway station at night. Have a look at the people on the stairway pic 1/10@f11, particularly the full size original - the stairs and signs on the buildings are sharp but the people show subject movement (they are shot side on)

http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photography/Canon/IS_1600/Canon_1600_IS.html

This was again with the 17-85: ISO 1600 1/10 @ F6.3 I don't have the focal length used readily to hand, but it would have been fairly wide angle. Here the girls are walking head on into the camera and show subject movement. This was taken in London whilst on vacation last year.
The URL for the larger pic is here:
http://www.poseruniverse.net/Holiday2006/UK/London/London9_L.htm

http://www.poseruniverse.net/Holiday2006/UK/London/LondonPics/1665M_M.jpg

If I could afford it I would have IS on all my lenses.

I feel the 70-300 IS is a good lens and its IQ meets my needs (web posting or prints up to A4). I have had it on my camera a lot lately where I need the extra 100mm mainly for shhoting nature Birds & spiders in webs etc. I havn't had it all that long so I am still learning with it. The last 10 pics (birds) have been taken with it. All have been PP. It will be in my bag next time we go on vacation and there is the slighest chance of any wildlife etc pics.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34094515@N00/sets/72157594418801428/

Will advise when 70-200 pics are up.
Hope this helps.
Richard

[jm4ever]

Dicktay

Thanks for your response. I must say you have some very nice images on those links you posted. For an ISO of 1600 they look really good.

It sure does look like the 70-300 is capable if some nice IQ. I look forward to seeing your 70-200 pics.

James

[dicktay]

It's overcast and a bit drizly here now (11:20 AM) so I'll see what happens this afternoon.

In the meanwhile all the pics here at this drag racing event were taken with the 70-200 (hand held) . It was my second outing with it.
http://richardtaylor.zenfolio.com/f190781620/

The first outing is here - A1GP -
http://richardtaylor.zenfolio.com/f486795281/

[dicktay]

@jm4ever

Here are 3 pics wide open at (F4) F=70/~135/200mm
The page is under construction and F6.3 to F32 will not be up for a couple of days. I think I need something with a lot more detail to photograph. I didn't know what "Sharp" meant 'till I took these - Even at F4.

Link to pics - Full size original jpgs are available now as well.

http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photography/Canon/70_200_F4L/Canon70_200_F4L_Top.htm

Hope this helps.
Richard

[gef]

Here are a couple:

300mm f/10 1/800 ISO 400
http://static.zooomr.com/images/845444_78be4c3860.jpg (http://static.zooomr.com/images/845444_78be4c3860_b.jpg)
click image for larger view.

210 f/10 1/1000 ISO 400 (cropped to center)
http://static.zooomr.com/images/845252_79706dbd9f.jpg (http://static.zooomr.com/images/845252_79706dbd9f_b.jpg)
click image for larger view.

I haven't bee able to get out with this lens as much as I would like since I only got it late last fall. So far I have to say it's a really good lens for the money and I love the IS!

[jm4ever]

dicktay

Thanks for the drag racing shots,I must say they seem razor sharp. I didn't really think the 70-200 would have enough reach for drag racing but they look great. Did you use a TC?

Gflatt

Your eagle shots are outstanding. They both seem very clear and have good contrast, was there any photoshop done or are these right from the camera?. Actually shot's like your's and dicktays seem to show that both lenses are capable of great IQ, so at least I know that I can't really go to far wrong picking either one.

Thanks

James

[dicktay]

@ jm4Ever.
Just the 70-200 lens. I don't own a TC........ yet.
Although I was in the spectator area it still was close to the track,
Behind the starting line and slightly above the track on the non stand side and up 8 rows or so in the stand side.
I didn't feel I needed any thing longer for the racing. However the next time I will take my 17-85 or even 12-24 (tokina) for in the pits. The F2.8 70-200 would have been even nicer for the evening shots and next time I will take ear plugs.
Richard

[south_paw]

Dictay,

Thanks a lot for the recommendations! I agree for most situations in rally where you are panning, the IS won't be much help. I've talked to other photogs about this recently and they agree with you.
As for equipment right now, I'm shooting with my ole' Canon 10D. I had a really cheap Sigma 70-300 (that I just sold) that didn't focus well in anything other than bright conditions. It also suffered from some nasty CA at times as well, and was very soft at 300, especially wide open, which is where I found myself on the darker stages. You are definitely right, pre-focusing definitely does help, especially if I've got a particular spot I'm trying to frame the car against. A lot of times however, I'm trying to rapid fire and nail as many shots of the car as possible as it flies by. Overall, from yours and others responses, the 70-200f/4L sounds like the winner for me. Thank you very much. I'm going to go check out that thread you posted right now.

Aaron

BTW, how do you like your Tokina 12-24??

[mizouse]

http://www.poseruniverse.net/Holiday2006/UK/London/LondonPics/1665M_M.jpg



that picture is hilarious look at that dude in the chair checking out those girls walking by hahahah

anyways i have the 70-300 IS, while the IS is nice for taking stationary objects i tend to take more low light shots so im considering selling it and saving up a few more bucks for a 70-200 2.8

[dicktay]

Hi,
All the pics for the 70-200 F4 L are now up including full size .jpgs from the camera.
I believe that with this lens from F4-F16 you don't have anything to worry about re sharpness.
At F22 & 32 it is a little softer however you have more of a problem with sensor dust showing and noise at high ISO's if shooting at F32.
It is my first L lens..... however It won't be my last.

@ mizouse. - Thanks for the compliment on the pic. Taken whilst on vacation in London last year.

@ South_Paw.
The Tokina is my first WA Zoom. So I am a bit biased.
I think it is extreemly good value for money. Built like a tank and IQ more than meets my needs. It is physically big (77mm filter) and there is some vigneting wide open at 12mm with a lens hood attached.

All the pics on this page (day 1 of our hiking trip) were taken with it. It was the only lens I had on the 350D (Rebel XT) that day.
(Day 2 was with a Tamron 18-200 - good to have when you are carrying a pile of non photo gear overnight)
A4 prints look beaut' - I always shoot RAW

http://www.poseruniverse.net/Travel/Kosciuszko/KNP_Top_L.htm

Here are some test shots similar to the ones I just did for the 70-200 = complete with original size jpgs and some cr2's.

http://www.poseruniverse.net/Photography/Canon/Tokina_22_24/Tokina12_24_Top.htm

Richard

[gef]

I shoot raw so they are tweaked a bit in ACR but I tend not to tweaked too much, and mostly just with exposure. For the first one it was a straight conversion using default settings (not auto) and the second one I bumped the constrast up a little bit but not much. In photoshop I cropped the second image and removed some dust spots that were on the lens from both. Thanks for the comments jm4ever!

[gef]

@300mm

http://static.zooomr.com/images/880135_89f7ff71fd.jpg (http://static.zooomr.com/images/880135_89f7ff71fd_b.jpg)

[xpsentity]

Anyone know if this lens can take a 1.4TC? It's not on the compatibility charts, etc..

If so, does it keep the AF?

[Andrew Pratt]

xpsentity it'll work with 3rd party 1.4TC's from Sigma, Tamron, or Kenko and will maintain autofocus in bright conditions...at least that's the impression I get from reading the threads on this lens. I have one coming in the mail and will be testing it with my Tamron TC next week.

[condyk]

Mine won't fit on my Canon 1.4x II. I imagine the Kenko Pro will as different design without the protruding element.

[xpsentity]

Excellent, thanks for the info.

Reason I ask, I need a decent (read: cheap!) wildlife lens soon*. I'm headed off to Vegas, Zion NP, Bryce Canyon NP and Rocky Mountain NP next month. :)

We wanted to hit Yellowstone, but it's just too far out of the way =/

[S.Horton]

Excellent, thanks for the info.

Reason I ask, I need a decent (read: cheap!) wildlife lens soon*. I'm headed off to Vegas, Zion NP, Bryce Canyon NP and Rocky Mountain NP next month. :)

We wanted to hit Yellowstone, but it's just too far out of the way =/

I would suggest that you rent a 400 f/2.8 IS and 1.4 TC for that, set up with a tripod, then circle back home. I made the mistake of assuming the 70-300 could perform at Yellowstone; it was just not long enough or fast enough (not enough aperture).

[mizouse]

here is a shot of the moon i took a while ago with it

http://www.pbase.com/mizouse/image/73559649/large.jpg

cropped
http://www.pbase.com/mizouse/image/73559648/large.jpg

this was hand held :)

[baw5t0n]

here is a shot of the moon i took a while ago with it

http://www.pbase.com/mizouse/image/73559649/large.jpg

cropped
http://www.pbase.com/mizouse/image/73559648/large.jpg

this was hand held :)


:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Have you tried it with any of the TC's?

[Jon_Doh]

The 70-300 IS is a superb lens, near L glass IQ and sharp throughout. Canon tc's won't work with it, but the Kenko pro will and it is high enough quality to not detract from the lens' sharpness.

Great moon shot btw.

[mizouse]

I haven't tried it with any TCs because i dont have any, but you are right it can be a pretty sharp lens

http://www.pbase.com/mizouse/image/76763091/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/mizouse/image/76763053/original.jpg

[joshandlauri]

Is this the IS DO lens that is like, $1000? If it is I was going to see if anyone has samples of the 75-300mm IS in a seperate thread. I'm looking into this or the 70-200mm f/4.

[runninmann]

Is this the IS DO lens that is like, $1000? If it is I was going to see if anyone has samples of the 75-300mm IS in a seperate thread. I'm looking into this or the 70-200mm f/4.Not the DO. This one http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=397663&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

[shaneotool]

70-300is

lion
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/240/459951665_d55d9aefcf_o.jpg

bird
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/167/457121196_8c823fc07b_o.jpg

[gef]

I haven't heard a lot of good comments regarding the 75-300 IS lens. I think some people get the two lenses confused or think they're one in the same. Now my 70-300 IS lens I love!! I had a really hard time choosing between the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, Canon 70-200 f/4 and the Canon 70-300 IS. The added range and IS sold me though...

[joshandlauri]

Not the DO. This one http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=397663&is=USA&addedTroughType=search


Thank you for clearing this up for me, I took some pics at the zoo using my 70-300 sigma and it left me wanting more, heres two from the zoo, maybe I'm just being over picky, you think? Sorry if I'm hijacking, Mods feel free to kill my post if necesary.

[airbutchie]

Here's a picture of a turtle I took... I was about 40-50 feet from it... Hand held... "IS" turned on... Setting at 1...

Focal length: 300mm
Shutter Speed: 1/400sec
Aperture: f/7.1
ISO: 200
White Balance: Daylight

ORIGINAL:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/airbutchie/Photography/Turtle-Original.jpg

100% CROPPED:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/airbutchie/Photography/Turtle-Cropped.jpg

Did a little bit of "unsharpen mask" in Photoshop and resized for web view... I'm happy I got a good copy... It will work well with my 70-200 f/4L...

- airbutchie :D

[sebr]

I just got the lens and did some test indoor shots at 300mm. This is one of my son's toys after unsharpen mask and a bit of color enhancement.

http://inlinethumb22.webshots.com/3029/2116788510100642291S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb29.webshots.com/5148/2118264820100642291S600x600Q85.jpg

100% crop
http://inlinethumb53.webshots.com/5684/2312895610100642291S600x600Q85.jpg

[boboy888]

If you like to see sports shots(motorcycle) of this lens go here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaba888/sets/72057594096305809/.

The lens and body is less than 1 month old and me still learning hehe ..taken in march 06

[syntrix]

I sold my copy of this lens. I've missed it so much, that I might buy a new one again ;)

[Larry Weinman]

I love this lens. When I am travelling and need something on the long side I always go with this lens. It is very sharp and quite light. Mine was one of the early ones with the vertical problem. I sent it to Canon and not only did they correct that but they improved the build quality of the lens. There is no lens barrel wobble and no zoom creep. A great bargain.

[gef]

Now that the weather is getting warmer, I'm getting out with this lens more!!

http://static.zooomr.com/images/1073039_ca88ddba22.jpg (http://static.zooomr.com/images/1073039_ca88ddba22_b.jpg)

http://static.zooomr.com/images/1073040_9d41e7b57a.jpg (http://static.zooomr.com/images/1073040_9d41e7b57a_b.jpg)

[unferth]

30 sec f/20
200mm
iso 100
manual mode

[airbutchie]

Anyone try this with a Kenko 1.4x TC? Example shots would be nice too...

- airbutchie :D

[Gluck]

Surely this is a more popular lens, keep them coming. Im going back and forth between 70-200 F4 and this lens

[moronNZ]

Focal length: 300mm
Shutter Speed: 1/750sec
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO: 100
White Balance: Auto
JPEG straight out of 350D, contrast, sharpness, and staturation are all set to 1. DPP image quality is 10.

http://www.freewebtown.com/moronNZ/Sydney/IMG_9024.JPG

100% crop
http://www.freewebtown.com/moronNZ/Sydney/IMG_9024_crop.JPG

I like this lens, but i think i will get 70-200 F4 IS if i have second chance

[cueceleches]

Here is mine...Just cropped a bit and resized. Excellent lens indeed!

Canon 400D, Canon 70-300 IS USM @ 1/800s, ISO 200, F/6.3.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/cueceleches/rec.jpg

1/1000, ISO 200 and F/5-6
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/cueceleches/_MG_0062.jpg

[sparksdjs]

1/1250s f/8.0 at 300.0mm iso100

http://k43.pbase.com/o6/61/4161/1/73850222.fL2mI690.Zoo300ISConvertedwebIMG_329401.j pg

Dave

[freddyco]

After six weeks of neglect, me and my EF 70-300 finally made up today. It's a great lens, especially for the price. Good things do come in small packages like the EF 70-300. Just watch the little guy in the series below for proof! :lol:

Shot today. 5D & 70-300mm. ISO 800. F5. at 220mm.

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/freddyco/Sumo/19.jpg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/freddyco/Sumo/19sm.jpg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/freddyco/Sumo/19sma.jpg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/freddyco/Sumo/19smb.jpg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/freddyco/Sumo/19smc.jpg

[thedjo]

wow that is a great shot freddyco.

btw where do you live in tokyo? I live in tsukuba, about 1 hour east of tokyo by train.

here are some shots of Japanese Seagull (umineko literally translated as Sea Cat)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/503391070_0743e96f3b_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/196/503391088_3b9a6c8782_o.jpg

[freddyco]

wow that is a great shot freddyco.

btw where do you live in tokyo? I live in tsukuba, about 1 hour east of tokyo by train.


Thanks. The famous sumo were there today. the rest are here. http://s172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/freddyco/Sumo/

Great umineko shots you have there. Which beach did you go to?

Forgot to mention I am in west tokyo.

I have been to Tsukuba a few years ago. All I saw was the inside of a DVD replication facility and the train station. :confused:

[LoganCL]

Just got it today! Love it!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/LoganCl/Telephoto2.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/LoganCl/Telephoto3.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/LoganCl/Telephoto4.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/LoganCl/telephoto5.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/LoganCl/Telephoto6.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/LoganCl/telephoto7.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/LoganCl/telephoto8.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/LoganCl/telephoto9.jpg

[etaV8R]

Any problems with this lens on a 5D?
I wouldn't think so but just wanted to ask.

[joshandlauri]

Well I made up my mind after renting this lens, I will get this one. moe pics to come, see pic and crop

[joshandlauri]

more,second pic is a 100% crop

[Petelebon]

Shots from Granby Zoo in 2006, near Montréal, Québec, Canada
Using EF 70-300 IS with Digital Rebel XT 350.

First one at f8, 1/640 sec., 220mm, Iso 800
176257


Second one at f7.1, 1/500 sec., 300mm, iso 800
176258

[Petelebon]

A coupe of others, still with Canon 70-300 IS and XT Camera


First one at f5, 135mm, 1/125sec., Iso 400
176262


Second one at f9, 300mm, 1/640sec., Iso 400
176263

[metalsaber]

I really like the lens, however sometimes I wish I had the 100-400 though.
http://www.metalsaber.com/images/people/people10.jpg

[airbutchie]

Hey Logan... Funny to see you on this board too... I'm on ISS like yourself... I saw the same post you did with the exact same pictures... Cool beans man... I'm glad you love this lens... I've had it too until I upgraded to the 70-200 f/2.8L USM... You can't go wrong with it... It's a great lens... I await to see more picture postings with this lens in the near future (on here as well as on ISS)... See ya on both boards!

- airbutchie ;)

[joshandlauri]

Lets see some crops!!!! Heres another one from me.
To bad I have to ship it back tommorow:cry: :cry: :cry: It will be another month or two before I can buy it.
. Mode 2 Panning in use here.

[joshandlauri]

and another with crop.

[Familiaphoto]

Nice thread. I have to admit my shame on this topic. About 2 weeks ago I came across a used 70-200 f4 L that was beautiful and bought it. Took it to some sport events and must admit the shots were fantastic. However, I found myself immediately wanting more range. I borrowed a friends Canon 1.4 TC and it got me closer, albeit at the loss of some speed. Shots were still good but found with my hands that I needed to use a monopod (perhaps I need to workout more).

It became a bad week and I was reconsidering my purchase more and more. I like the L quality and build, but really wanted the IS. I went back the Calumet where I picked up the lens and ended up returning it, purchasing the 70-300 IS to replace it. This is not an L lens, but it does not pretend to be one. I now have the range I need and the IS to avoid a monopod, I also believe it will be a good travel lens. Pics are good so far, I think the L might be a bit sharper but I don't have any good comparisons to be sure. However, let me say the 70-300 is no slouch. Many call it a hidden L, perhaps it is, I don't know.

It comes down to which lens will fit your shooting style best. For me right now the 70-300 seems to be it. When I have enough to get the 70-200 f2.8 IS I know I will get it as I know the 70-300 will not get me where I want to be indoors, but then again neither would the F4 have helped there.

Boy am I trying to justfy a purchase or what... :o)

[joshandlauri]

just a little bit justifying, I've had this lens for 4 days now and of course the wife swears she sees no difference from my cheap sigma ?? But I'm saving my side money from fixing cars to get this lens that way the wife can't say i dipped into our money for it. :)

[shaneotool]

The 70-300IS is just a lot more versatile than the 70-200. I was taking some pictures of an awards banquet my niece and nephew were in. I was halfway back in a big auditorium and needed every bit of 300mm and IS to get the shots. They turned out good though - I was able to get a ss of 1/60, fast enough to stop the action - but the shots would have been blurry without IS.

[srkiller]

I'm very satisfied with 70-300IS, had Sigma APO before that and differnce is huge.
I couldnt imagine tele w/o IS anymore, no need for tripod most of the time. Resolution of the lens is fabolous and I couldn't compare it to Sigma in any way.

[Andy_D]

I bought this lens thanks to the cashback offers that were around last month. Its very good quality and has some excellent features, the biggest of which is getting IS at this price! I had seen the 70-200 f/2.8 & 100-400 L series lenses but I thought them to be OTT for an amateur like myself and couldn't justify the cost. Here are some shots taken with the 70-300 at Slimbridge, the local wetlands trust:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/baconsarnie/sets/72157600459112053/

Sign in for exif info and I will so some crops n stuff for those interested.

AD

[IrishKing]

Andy D
what cash back offer was there on the EF 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM last month? I purchased one around June 13, 2007 and was told there was not a rebate on it.

[runninmann]

Andy D
what cash back offer was there on the EF 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM last month? I purchased one around June 13, 2007 and was told there was not a rebate on it.Maybe European Union only?

[IrishKing]

Maybe European Union only?


that would be unfair for Europeans to receive a rebate and not American consumers.

[runninmann]

that would be unfair for Europeans to receive a rebate and not American consumers.During last fall/winter when we had U.S. rebates, I believe Europe and (maybe) Canada did not. Rebates are not a right, they're a privilege, granted by the manufacturer to stimulate sales. If, for some reason, the mfg wants to stimulate sales in one region and not another, that's his prerogative.

[richarddd]

I notice that the OP lists the 70-200/4 in his signature and that some of those posting about being happy with the 70-300 now list the 70-200 in their signatures.

[Andy_D]

Andy D
what cash back offer was there on the EF 70-300 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM last month? I purchased one around June 13, 2007 and was told there was not a rebate on it.

Part of the EF Lens 20th Anniversary bargains, I bought this kit:

http://www.warehouseexpress.co.uk/?/photo/lenses/CanonLensKitsCashback.html

EF-S 10-22 U
EF-S 70-300 IS U

* Save £174

I guess it was Europe only judging by http://canon2007promotions.onlinerebates.com/

Andy

[tom s]

How is the battery life with IS on?

[Just Be]

I love my copy. I love the color and performance. The IS does not eat any more battery than my Sigma 17-70 as far as I know. I wouldn't make it a factor when deciding on this lens or not.

[baw5t0n]

I notice that the OP lists the 70-200/4 in his signature and that some of those posting about being happy with the 70-300 now list the 70-200 in their signatures.

Well, I have the 70-200/2.8 IS, with which I'm VERY happy, as well as the 70-300/4-5.6 IS. I got the latter because sometimes you want that extra reach and don't really need the speed, in which case my 70-300/4-5.6 IS works out nicely. But in my opinion, the two lenses are in different category of lenses due to the speed of 70-200/2.8.

[gef]

I'd say there in a different price category as well!! I'm very happy with my copy. I'd love to have a copy of the 70-200 is f/2.8 as well mind you!!

http://static.zooomr.com/images/2843607_1be0fc53d2.jpg?r=360 (http://static.zooomr.com/images/2843607_1be0fc53d2_b.jpg)
Click for bigger.

[elavernge]

I just purchased a Canon XTI I am looking at the different lenses and I must say I am overwhelmed. I want to say thank you to everyone that posted here as I am learning a lot. This is my first SLR camera, I travel quite a bit for business and bought the camera for my travels. I will be in South Africa later this year and will spend a few days on safari, Does the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS lens have 8231013 as the part number? The description is the same. As with some others I would like to know if the Kenko Pro 1.4x and 2x teleconverters will be a good addition for my safari. I will be buying a monopod. Thank you all in advance for your help and if I can get my pix to turn out half as good as yours I will be thrilled.

Eric

[jonnypb]

if i were to use the kenko pro 1.4x on my 70-300mm what would the maximum focal distace be in old style 35mm terms be - would it be 672mm with it being a 1.6x crop body as well?

also will the IS still work effectivly?

thanks

[tcat]

I had the Sigma, and now this 70-300-IS and the IS increases keepers by 500%. Now that I've owned it more than a year, I am debating whether to sell it and get the 300/4-IS. I have the 200/2.8, but not sure if I prefer primes or zoom. Here's a few shots with the 70-300-IS: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/70300_sample_images Is the 300-IS worth it? I believe my Kenko 1.4x should be much sharper with the prime... please take me into a decision.

[jonnypb]

believe my Kenko 1.4x should be much sharper with the prime... please take me into a decision.

how do you find the kenko 1.4x on your 70-300IS in terms of IQ and AF, would you recommend it?

i'm sure you'll get sharper results with the prime but the 70-300 in itself is very sharp and you'd lose the zoom

thanks

[tcat]

There's a few images at the link I referenced with the Kenko (anything with a 420mm focal length). You need a lot of sun to get AF to lock (or just use manual). You lose focal length exif, unlike the Kenko on my 200mm retains exif, not sure what would happen with the 300mm. Sharpness is not there at all if you don't have enough light, and even with light it's not as sharp as a prime. But I think you're right, I'd miss the zoom... but I found a deal on the 300-IS that is good enough, should I not like it, could easily get my money back on a sale. But I'm no "Pro", so I probably wouldn't see that much IQ improvement.

[mrbeagle]

ok I just went through every page on this thread and the 70-200 f4 L thread. You guys must be nuts if you think this is anywhere close to the level of images of the f4. Just compare the shots. I'm definitely sold on the f4l now.

[Mrvile]

ok I just went through every page on this thread and the 70-200 f4 L thread. You guys must be nuts if you think this is anywhere close to the level of images of the f4. Just compare the shots. I'm definitely sold on the f4l now.

Alright then, have fun without IS :)

[KarlMarsh]

I have been rather happy with my 70-300mm IS. Sure I would love to have an L but for now this will do me just fine. All these shots were taken wide open F5.6 at 300mm.

http://rideld.smugmug.com/photos/176945959-L.jpg

http://rideld.smugmug.com/photos/176945637-L.jpg

100% Crops
http://rideld.smugmug.com/photos/180180918-L.jpg

http://rideld.smugmug.com/photos/180182274-L.jpg

[Just Be]

The extra reach and IS and very high IQ? I love mine.

It's not possible to handhold a 200mm-300mm without some signs of shaking in the pic. IS nearly solves all of these situations. I can't imagine shooting without IS.

[tom s]

IS is not necessary with fast lenses (like 85 1.2 or 135 2) but it is very needed
with slow zooms...

[Mrvile]

The extra reach and IS and very high IQ? I love mine.

It's not possible to handhold a 200mm-300mm without some signs of shaking in the pic. IS nearly solves all of these situations. I can't imagine shooting without IS.

:confused: You should probably shoot with IS off some time. When you're metering 1/500 or more, IS isn't going to help you, so it's very possible to handhold 300mm without IS.

[Just Be]

:confused: You should probably shoot with IS off some time. When you're metering 1/500 or more, IS isn't going to help you, so it's very possible to handhold 300mm without IS.

I should try that. I've just been so pleased with the IQ at slow shutter speeds that I haven't tried.

Believe me if I could justify a 70-200 2.8 I would get it. I understand the difference between fast and slow lenses. I don't shoot sports or action in low light so I'm alright with the 70-300IS.

It's nice to be able to shoot at 2.8 at fast shutter speed, but don't you sacrifice depth of field? Don't you want to be shooting at f4 or better in most situations anyway unless the light is really low? I seem to be able to capture a lot at f4 on my 70-300IS.

[Just Be]

Man, learning photography is a riot.

I'm learning that to take a proper landscape shot I need to have the camera on a tripod, use mirror lock up and a remote trigger, with a hot shoe spirit level.

And now I hear that I can hand hold a shot at 300mm? Without IS?

What the hell, I'll give anything a try once. :confused:

[sebr]

Man, learning photography is a riot.

I'm learning that to take a proper landscape shot I need to have the camera on a tripod, use mirror lock up and a remote trigger, with a hot shoe spirit level.

And now I hear that I can hand hold a shot at 300mm? Without IS?

What the hell, I'll give anything a try once. :confused:

It is true that IS not always needed, but IS remains a useful feature. In many occasions, you won't be able to shoot faster than 1/500 and IS will save your shot. Even in good light, IS can help stabilize the view finder for aiming and focusing. :D

[Mrvile]

Just to keep adding to the archive, here is a shot...300mm, f/5.6, 1/200s:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a214/Mrvile/DSLR%20Photos/bugs/skipper1.jpg

[tom s]

The bokeh is awesome :)

[tcat]

There's been several threads about this lens not focusing correctly in portrait mode if you have a serial number with "0" or "1" at the beginning. Info here:
http://www.usa.canon.com/... ...oryid=216&modelid=11922&keycode=2112&id=28468 (http://www.usa.canon.com/... ...oryid=216&modelid=11922&keycode=2112&id=28468)

I believed I was having focus issues (looking at all the super images in this thread), so I sent mine in. I just got mine back. It was a very good experience, they sent a shipper, I sent it on 7/27, and got it back today 8/10 (went to CAL. service). Message with my receipt:
"We have examined the product according to your request, and, the auto focus did not operate properly from time to time. REPLACED INNER LENS UNIT."

Now to go home and try it out... I hope it's not TOO good, I just bought a 300mm/4 IS for better IQ qith a 1.4x TC. Now another "which do I sell" decision"... I plan on doing some side by sides once I get my 300/4 in, I assume it will blow away the zoom.

[Nick_C]

Im loving mine, I recently purchased a set of Kenko extension tubes, I was suprised at how well the 70-300IS works with these, I can get almost 1:1 macro but with much better working distances than with the 50mm F2.8 Macro lens which I recently tried, infact I sent it back, this has given my 70-300IS new purpose!

[tcat] im sure your 300mm prime will be far better than the 70-300IS, or at least it SHOULD be.

Nick :-)

[Mrvile]

Two more for the archive

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a214/Mrvile/DSLR%20Photos/bugs/butterfly3.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a214/Mrvile/DSLR%20Photos/bugs/harvestman1.jpg

[Mork350D]

Thought it was time I attempted to post a picture and give an example of this lens.
Here goes
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1050/1089993879_719d626e89_b.jpg

It didnt work so I just linked it

[joeyCes]

great shot.... color pops out!

[Nick_C]

I love the Bokeh with my 70-300IS & the colour/contrast is every bit as good as my L lens.

Nick :-)

[Familiaphoto]

My 70-300 IS is one of my favorite lenses and part of my permanent travel kit along with my 17-55 IS. Bokeh is great on this lens and IS is a life saver at times.

Below is a shot of waterfall I just came across while on vacation at Disney this week. Had just gotten off the safari ride and still had the 70-300 attached. Couldn't have gotten this without the IS. Needed to slow the shutter down to get the water how I wanted it. Not the perfect shot, but gets the point across.

[Mrvile]

Here's one:
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a214/Mrvile/DSLR%20Photos/bugs/beeinbed.jpg

[Familiaphoto]

I really feel like I should be taking pictures of more bugs and flowers looking at the above. :D

But I live in Chicago with a lot of dirt and smog, our flowers are brown and our bugs are mutated so we need a wide angle to shoot them. :D

[Mrvile]

I really feel like I should be taking pictures of more bugs and flowers looking at the above. :D

But I live in Chicago with a lot of dirt and smog, our flowers are brown and our bugs are mutated so we need a wide angle to shoot them. :D

I use the 70-300IS pretty much solely for bugs now. It's one of the best non-macro bug lenses out there, just short of the 300/4L IS.

[Nick_C]

I use the 70-300IS pretty much solely for bugs now. It's one of the best non-macro bug lenses out there, just short of the 300/4L IS.

Do you mean just standard or with tubes? I recently got a set of Kenko tubes & compared it to a proper macro lens, I was amazed at how little difference there really was, edge sharpness was virtually identical, however the same tubes on my 24-105L revealed a fair amount of edge softness & CA, the 70-300IS with tubes is fantastic.

[Mrvile]

Do you mean just standard or with tubes? I recently got a set of Kenko tubes & compared it to a proper macro lens, I was amazed at how little difference there really was, edge sharpness was virtually identical, however the same tubes on my 24-105L revealed a fair amount of edge softness & CA, the 70-300IS with tubes is fantastic.

While the 70-300IS does pretty well without tubes (the butterfly shot I posted near the top of the page was tubeless), I tend to shoot with tubes just in case I need to get a little closer. The 70-300IS by itself has a 1:4 magnification ratio, which is already enough for butterflies and dragonflies, and I'll add either the 12mm or 20mm tube for smaller bugs. I try not to add too many tubes, though, because I still use AF a lot and I don't like it when the viewfinder gets so dark.

Anyway, for the smallest bugs like flies and whatnot, I'll still stick with a true macro lens. This is the closest I can get with the 70-300IS + 20mm tube (no cropping):

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a214/Mrvile/DSLR%20Photos/bugs/fly2.jpg

[Nick_C]

Yes I never leave home with my tubes now, I love em on my 70-300IS, I use all 3 tubes most of the time, I just MF & then fire off a round of shots using the AF confirmation as a rough guide.

To be honest I havent really noticed any darkening of the viewfinder, nothing major anyway, but then the 5D is known for having a bright viewfinder, I might notice it more on my cropped body but I havent tried it.

[Mrvile]

Yes I never leave home with my tubes now, I love em on my 70-300IS, I use all 3 tubes most of the time, I just MF & then fire off a round of shots using the AF confirmation as a rough guide.

To be honest I havent really noticed any darkening of the viewfinder, nothing major anyway, but then the 5D is known for having a bright viewfinder, I might notice it more on my cropped body but I havent tried it.

Well the 5D has a great viewfinder, and the viewfinder on my Rebel XT is already small and dark enough as it is, so... I can shoot fine with all three tubes, but it's just uncomfortable because it does get quite dark.

[david888lee]

oh man.... i have got to stop looking at this forum :[ bad things happen to my wallet :]

[S.Horton]

^^ Yep.

[mrfourcows]

objectively, has anyone notice how dull the colours that the 70-300IS produces is?

or am i the only one..

[Nick_C]

objectively, has anyone notice how dull the colours that the 70-300IS produces is?

or am i the only one..

Must be what your shooting, time of day etc.. as I use mine in conjunction with the 24-105L & colour/contrast are so close as to be pretty much identical.

[unferth]

Haven't posted to this in a while....

[unferth]

And another :) (went to the zoo this weekend)

[Mike55]

objectively, has anyone notice how dull the colours that the 70-300IS produces is?

or am i the only one..

You are probably shooting in dead light in polluted areas(haze, dull colors, etc). Try lower light times. I find my 70-300IS to be as good as the 70-200F4L I had in terms of colors.

[mrfourcows]

Must be what your shooting, time of day etc.. as I use mine in conjunction with the 24-105L & colour/contrast are so close as to be pretty much identical.

but compared to my ef 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5, the colours it produces are very much dull. btw, the 70-210mm's colours are also a bit washed out compared to the 70-200 f/4L.

[unferth]

Well, the colors in the jpeg's I've been exporting are much worse than the raws....

(dang 100k limit)....

I am getting close to ordering one of the 70-200 IS lenses though... (the F4 is just so dang sharp.. but the 2.8 is faster..... I'm torn :) )

[Mike55]

but compared to my ef 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5, the colours it produces are very much dull. btw, the 70-210mm's colours are also a bit washed out compared to the 70-200 f/4L.


Sounds like you received a bad copy. Did you get it checked for the vertical orientation issue? That could be causing the dullness as some people reported the vertical issue crept into the horizontal issue.

[Mike55]

Well, the colors in the jpeg's I've been exporting are much worse than the raws....

(dang 100k limit)....

I am getting close to ordering one of the 70-200 IS lenses though... (the F4 is just so dang sharp.. but the 2.8 is faster..... I'm torn :) )



Are you using DPP to export?

[unferth]

a few more...

[unferth]

Sorry for the randomness of these :) I'm just looking back through lightroom and sending a few.....

[unferth]

...I'll stop whenever anyone asks me to :)