Just ordered the CANON 70-300MM F/4-5.6 IS USM LENS

[alan breslow]

I have the 17-85mm now. Anyone have this yet? On my D100 I had a couple of Sigma lenses. Not too bad but this time I want quality glass...

[kalmo]

Hey,
Yeah, thats a nice lense, i think the IS really helps, espeically when you are using it the 300mm end, where you have to have a smaller aperture.
You planning on using a tripod with it?
K

[su719]

Is this the new version or the old version?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082207canonlenses.asp

[condyk]

I have the 17-85mm now. Anyone have this yet? On my D100 I had a couple of Sigma lenses. Not too bad but this time I want quality glass...

Not sure what you mean by 'quality' ... how do you define that? Depending on your answer then you may or may not find the 70-300MM F/4-5.6 IS acceptable.

If you've bought the new version then I'd have waited myself to see what it's like. If it gets poor reviews then you're left with a bit of dud that will be hard to shift. If you've bought the old version then I'd have waited until you see what the new one is like ;) If it's better for not much more then, again, you're left with a lens that will be hard to shift.

[alan breslow]

This is the link:

http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=13318705 (http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=13318705)

It may be an old pic as it says not in stock yet. Is this the old or new? I can change or cancel if I want to.

What would you recommend for the 70-300 range?

[su719]

That is the new one. Damn that is alot of $$$ for an untested lens with bad heritage. If you need a zoom and want to spend that amount of dough I would go for a 70-200 F4L.

[condyk]

What would you recommend for the 70-300 range?

What would you want to use it for mainly?

The problem is that 'quality' lenses that cover the range are not common. At the bottom end I wouldn't buy any of them, next level the 70-300 APO DG Sigma and Canon 100-300 USM are worth having, with the Sigma best value in my view.

Next level you have the Sigma 100-300 f4, which is a superb lens but costs around $850 US, then the Canon 70-200 f4 which is a very good lens and a bit cheaper than the Sigma.

I had both and would be happy with the Sigma again: the Canon is too short for me, but may suit you unless you must have the extra 100mm length. Adding a TCon gets you some length but not a good solution ... I tried it in the past ;) The Sigma is much better if you want 300mm and carries a TCon better to get you 420mm, stays fast on AF and retains very good image quality.

Not sure what else to suggest. It may be worth waiting for some reviews on the 70-300 IS and then deciding which route to take. I wouldn't risk it at the moment. Looks nice tho ;)

[Dan GSR]

I would go for a 70-200 F4L.


same here

[alan breslow]

Just general pics. We go to the zoo and other places. A short lightweight one would be best, but I want clear pics. I used the sigma 18-125 and the sigma 55-200 on the D100. The 18-125 was not too sharp. I did not use the 55-200 enough to judge. It may be ok for that once in a while use.

[Citizensmith]

That is the new one. Damn that is alot of $$$ for an untested lens with bad heritage. If you need a zoom and want to spend that amount of dough I would go for a 70-200 F4L.

I'd wait for reviews of the new lens. Even the older 75-300 IS could hang in there against the 70-200 in conditions when the IS became a significant factor. This new lens has better IS and tweaked optics. It's going to be better than the 75-300 but how much better is a good question. I think it'll probably prove to be a good choice but personally I'd just have waited for reviews before dropping cash on it.

[alan breslow]

This lens:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-75-300-EF-USM-IS-for-10D-20D-Rebel-XT-MINT_W0QQitemZ7542073918QQcategoryZ4687QQssPageNam eZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[martook]

No, you shouldn't get that one, it's supposed to be quite bad indeed. Wait for reviews of the new one or get the 70-200 f/4 instead...

[condyk]

Just general pics. We go to the zoo and other places. A short lightweight one would be best, but I want clear pics. I used the sigma 18-125 and the sigma 55-200 on the D100. The 18-125 was not too sharp. I did not use the 55-200 enough to judge. It may be ok for that once in a while use.

The 18-125 has fans here. It's worth trying on the DSLR and then making sure you post process images a bit to get best results.

The 70-200 f4 L will do you better than the 70-300 IS jobs which have pretty average quality I think. There may be a nice secondhand one at the Marketplace here.

[Croasdail]

I had that particular lens up to a couple of months ago - I know it gets hammered a lot by the upper end crowd - no it isn't an "L", but it isn't priced like one either. I used it as travel lens it did that job just fine. The IS helped and at most it needed a little USM occassionally - hardly as bad as some make it to be. Don't trust someones second information that they read someone had problems with it. If you need some examples - let me know. No - it isn't an "L", but it is relatively small for a 300, built well, and can be had for under $400.00 us - a great lens to pack for a trip.

[Jemram]

I took the pictures in this thread, http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=95060 with my 'old' version of the 75-300mm IS USM lens. While it's not perfect, at F/8 or smaller it can be sharp.

[martook]

Just about any lens is good under perfect light conditions, stopped down. But how often can you count on perfect conditions?
It might not be priced as an L, but it's way to close in price to the 70-200 f/4 if you ask me, and if the example pictures from 250-300mm that I've seen are representative, you only lose 50mm with the L, and you gain a lot in glass quality. I was really close to buying this lens, so spent a lot of time researching... there is a reason for it's dubious reputation.
The L isn't even that much bigger, nor heavier, so to me, the old "consumer IS" just doesn't cut it.

Jeremy: Both those peacock pictures are below 150mm, what would be more interesting would be pictures well above 200mm in my opinion.

I do believe that the new version will be improved a lot, although that will take some time to get confirmed... but if one wants a small zoom to 300mm with IS, I'd definetly recommend waiting until the new one has been released.

[Jemram]

As I said, it's not perfect, and I got it for a bargain second hand. I would not buy one new though. Up to 200mm it can be sharp if stopped, but over 200mm or wide open it's can get very soft. The 100-400mm IS is going to be replacing mine soon.

[SidW]

I still have this lens, the old one, not because I can't get rid of it but because I want to keep it. It is very light and handy to have, travelling etc. I have got some great wildlife shots with it, in reasonable light.
While I would'nt recommend it over a better, more expensive lens, if you have a tight budget it is well worth it.
I notice a lot of the negative comments are from people who have'nt owned it!
Sid

[nitsch]

Look forward to seeing some test shots from the new lens Alan. I'll be interested to see how it compares with the 70-300 DO in terms of image quality. If this new lens is significantly better than the old 75-300 IS then Canon risk damaging their DO sales which I think they would be keen to avoid given the huge financial investment they have made in developing DO technology. I'll watch this space.

[martook]

nitsch: as another owner of the DO, I'm really interested as well :)
The MTF graphs of the new lens look good, but don't really trust those... as you say, if this lens is too good, they won't sell a lot of DO lenses, and they know that very well.

SidW: True, I haven't owned it, but a lot of people that has owned it has written reviews, and many of those are less than stellar. All I'm saying is that the 70-200 f/4 isn't THAT much more expensive, and considered a bargain, while the old one is considered overpriced by many. Also, there is a new version of the lens coming out that might be a lot better... so don't understand how anyone could recommend it.

[Croasdail]

here - let me give you a couple of samples and then you all can decide if they are sharp enough for your needs... I was happy with my lens.... the first is at 255 mm @ f5.6 and the second was at 300 mm @ f5.6 ... cheers all - maybe I just am really easy to please.

[Croasdail]

last one - highly compressed so not sure it will show as much as the original did... have fun all. Oh - this one is 300 mm at f5.6 too.

[alan breslow]

is this the new or old version?

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Canon-EF-75-300mm-f-4-5-6-IS-USM-Lens-USA-Warranty_W0QQitemZ7542444279QQcategoryZ106844QQtcZ photoQQcmdZViewItem

[Croasdail]

the one pictured is the old one I had... not the new one. You can tell the difference quickly by if it has the mode switch on the side (1-2 selection switch). The price is also high - do a nextag.com search on it - amazon has it for just over $400 from Amazon. Looks like B&H is out of stock.

[Jemram]

I suspect the new version will just have updated IS, and the optical performance will be much the same as the old one.