Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
Thread started 11 Mar 2006 (Saturday) 10:28
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
johngpt
Senior Member
854 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Albuquerque, NM
     
Feb 25, 2009 17:44 as a reply to  @ post 7405305 |  #496

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.

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

John

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
funhouse69
Senior Member
Avatar
999 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Boston, MA
     
Feb 27, 2009 17:17 |  #497

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.

IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/481848054_uM9vf-XL.jpg
2.
IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/481848265_gfzkE-XL.jpg
3.
IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/481848945_URwAT-XL.jpg

4.
IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/481849177_EPfhg-XL.jpg
5.
IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/481850356_eHjcx-XL.jpg
6.
IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/481852045_H65L5-XL.jpg

My Online Gallery (external link)
>>> My Gear List / Feedback <<<

For Sale LowePro Super Trekker

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johngpt
Senior Member
854 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Albuquerque, NM
     
Feb 27, 2009 22:56 |  #498

fh69, those are outstanding.


John

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
funhouse69
Senior Member
Avatar
999 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Boston, MA
     
Mar 08, 2009 18:22 |  #499

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

IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487369334_nfpKv-L.jpg
IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487386821_BZvvP-L.jpg
3.
IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487374209_54CGj-L.jpg
4.
IMAGE: 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
IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487379854_X4Qma-L.jpg
6.My Personal Favorite
IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487392841_nvnUn-L.jpg
7.
IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487366290_Wy3oZ-L.jpg
8.
IMAGE: http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/487367341_FRNVX-L.jpg

My Online Gallery (external link)
>>> My Gear List / Feedback <<<

For Sale LowePro Super Trekker

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixelbasher
Goldmember
Avatar
1,827 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Lake Macquarie, AUS
     
Mar 13, 2009 06:25 as a reply to  @ funhouse69's post |  #500

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


50D. 7D. 24-105L. 100-400L. 135L. 50 1.8 Sigma 8-16
flickr

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
funhouse69
Senior Member
Avatar
999 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Boston, MA
     
Mar 13, 2009 11:18 |  #501

pixelbasher wrote in post #7514742 (external link)
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.


My Online Gallery (external link)
>>> My Gear List / Feedback <<<

For Sale LowePro Super Trekker

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixelbasher
Goldmember
Avatar
1,827 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Lake Macquarie, AUS
     
Mar 13, 2009 16:47 as a reply to  @ funhouse69's post |  #502

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


50D. 7D. 24-105L. 100-400L. 135L. 50 1.8 Sigma 8-16
flickr

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johngpt
Senior Member
854 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Albuquerque, NM
     
Mar 13, 2009 19:26 |  #503

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.


John

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixelbasher
Goldmember
Avatar
1,827 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Lake Macquarie, AUS
     
Mar 15, 2009 08:16 as a reply to  @ johngpt's post |  #504

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!


50D. 7D. 24-105L. 100-400L. 135L. 50 1.8 Sigma 8-16
flickr

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gary ­ W.
Member
Avatar
61 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Lompoc, CA
     
Mar 16, 2009 23:48 as a reply to  @ pixelbasher's post |  #505

Hey all,

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

Gary W.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Canon 7D gripped, Canon 70D, Canon 50 ƒ1.4, Canon 85 ƒ1.8, Canon 18-135mm IS STM, Canon 70-300 IS USM, Tamron 70-200 ƒ2.8 Di VC USD, Canon 430EX, Pixel Mago Speedlights, RPS Studio wireless triggers, Pixel King Pro transceivers and Pixel King X receivers.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
runninmann
what the heck do I know?
Avatar
8,156 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 150
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Michigan-U.S.A.
     
Mar 19, 2009 17:37 |  #506

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


My Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
funhouse69
Senior Member
Avatar
999 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Boston, MA
     
Mar 19, 2009 17:49 |  #507

runninmann wrote in post #7557936 (external link)
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.


My Online Gallery (external link)
>>> My Gear List / Feedback <<<

For Sale LowePro Super Trekker

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
funhouse69
Senior Member
Avatar
999 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Boston, MA
     
Mar 19, 2009 17:52 |  #508

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

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

My Online Gallery (external link)
>>> My Gear List / Feedback <<<

For Sale LowePro Super Trekker

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gary ­ W.
Member
Avatar
61 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Lompoc, CA
     
Mar 20, 2009 12:20 |  #509

runninmann wrote in post #7557936 (external link)
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.


Canon 7D gripped, Canon 70D, Canon 50 ƒ1.4, Canon 85 ƒ1.8, Canon 18-135mm IS STM, Canon 70-300 IS USM, Tamron 70-200 ƒ2.8 Di VC USD, Canon 430EX, Pixel Mago Speedlights, RPS Studio wireless triggers, Pixel King Pro transceivers and Pixel King X receivers.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2575
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Mar 24, 2009 19:11 |  #510

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

IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3382844122_dcccde481f_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …382844122/in/ph​otostream/  (external link)

IMAGE: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3642/3382844842_243bd98ea7_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …382844842/in/ph​otostream/  (external link)

Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

698,080 views & 31 likes for this thread
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dneitz
859 guests, 272 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.