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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 03 Feb 2010 (Wednesday) 19:43
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

long zooms - IS and the full gamut

 
pol024
Member
167 posts
Joined Sep 2009
     
Feb 03, 2010 19:43 |  #1

I have been painstakingly researching, trying to find a long lens, and I have not had much luck making a decision.

For a while I was set on the 70-300 IS USM, but have seen a complete lack of support for that lens. It seems to me that no other lens is as completely ignored.

Taking this lack of community support, I thought going with the 70-200L might be a fair choice. The lens is in within a similar price range, and seems to have users pouring out love for it. In the end I really think that a long lens with no IS would be a bad choice for me personally. I have very unsteady hands, and have to use every trick I can to steady myself enough to do well with 1/focal length (x1.6 since I have a crop) shutter. This bumps me up to the 70-200L IS, which is twice the price.

At that price point it really seems to me that I haven't put the time in to deserve that kind of lens. I'm relatively new to DSLR's, and to me it really seems like learner lenses are the way to go. I made my way up through the PnS category, and only plunked down for a Rebel when I was sure I knew what limitations I was trying to step past. Which brings me full circle to wonder if I should just stay with the starter 55-250.

Basically what I am looking for is advice on the two lower end models. I just really cant justify $1200 for a lens at the moment, but wonder if the initial step up is worth considering. Again though, I have to wonder why the community seems to avoid this lens as a whole.

Any advice would be gladly accepted.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
shooter ­ mcgavin
Senior Member
Avatar
526 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
     
Feb 03, 2010 19:58 |  #2

I think that people tend to "ignore" it because the 70-200f/4 is so close in price, and in most aspects a "better" lens (build, af, and probably optics). But if you need the reach of the 70-300, and you need IS, then get it. It doesn't really matter how good a lens is if it doesn't meet your needs/wants.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kevin ­ B
Senior Member
291 posts
Likes: 55
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Albuquerque, NM
     
Feb 03, 2010 20:07 as a reply to  @ shooter mcgavin's post |  #3

The 70-300 is a nice (not great, but nice) lens. The IS works well and I was pretty happy with images I could produce with it. Depending on what you want to shoot, the extra 100mm can make a big difference. The build quality was pretty good. It does tend to creep to the long end but has a lock to keep it at the short end for carrying. It will hunt at time for focus which was my biggest complaint with it. I haven't shot with the either of the 70-200's but if the 70-300 looks like it fits your needs, you'll likely be happy with it.

Good luck.


GEAR: 5D Mark III, 7D, 24-105L, 16-35 F/4L, 50 f/1.4, 100-400L II, 100 f/2.8 macro, Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, 1.4X III, Sigma 14mm F/1.8 Art

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Feb 03, 2010 20:08 |  #4

Stick with the 55-250 IS until you can afford the 70-200/4L IS (or the 2.8) or 100-400. The biggest advantage the 70-300 has over the 55-250 is that it is an EF lens, and that doesn't matter in your case.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shaftmaster
Goldmember
Avatar
1,429 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: above 5000 feet
     
Feb 03, 2010 20:54 |  #5

xarqi wrote in post #9535962 (external link)
Stick with the 55-250 IS until you can afford the 70-200/4L IS (or the 2.8) or 100-400. The biggest advantage the 70-300 has over the 55-250 is that it is an EF lens, and that doesn't matter in your case.

I completely agree with this, having owned three of the lenses mentioned and the 75-300 IS lens.


Paul

Gear -- Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Feb 03, 2010 23:06 |  #6

pol024 wrote in post #9535840 (external link)
For a while I was set on the 70-300 IS USM, but have seen a complete lack of support for that lens. It seems to me that no other lens is as completely ignored.

From a single thread in this forum:

"I have had one since I bought my 40D and love it."

"...when compared to the other lenses that I have used, I get many more keepers using that lens. In summary, unless I run into a boat load of money and can afford the L big guns, I wont ever get rid of it."

"I absolutely love my 70-300. The range is great, it's light, cheap, the IS is effective, quick and accurate focus, zoom lock."

"I own a 70-200 f2.8L IS and a 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS and my 70-300 get's used twice, maybe three times as much as both of them combined. The 70-300 is an L in sheep's clothing."

"It's a frequently used, versatile lens, useful indoors and outdoors, with no shortcomings on a XTi."

"I'm another fan of the 70-300IS. My 100-400 can be a little big for vacations, but the 70-300IS works great so I nearly always take it along. I haven't had any problems with softness."

Complete lack of support?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
msowsun
"approx 8mm"
Avatar
9,250 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 282
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Oakville Ont. Canada
     
Feb 04, 2010 05:05 |  #7

DC Fan wrote in post #9537036 (external link)
From a single thread in this forum:

"I own a 70-200 f2.8L IS and a 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS and my 70-300 get's used twice, maybe three times as much as both of them combined. The 70-300 is an L in sheep's clothing."

The 70-300 IS is a pretty good lens, but it is a pretty far fetched to call it an "L" in in sheep's clothing . It lacks ring type USM, Full Time Manual focus, focus distance scale, and has a rotating front element. Hardly what I would call an "L" in in sheep's clothing.

It really has much more in common with the EF-S 55-250 IS. It costs much more though, and probably explains why it is not so popular now.


Mike Sowsun / S110 / SL1 / 80D / EF-S 24mm STM / EF-S 10-18mm STM / EF-S 18-55mm STM / EF-S 15-85mm USM / EF-S 18-135mm USM / EF-S 55-250mm STM / 5D3 / Samyang 14mm 2.8 / EF 40mm 2.8 STM / EF 50mm 1.8 STM / EF 100mm 2.0 USM / EF 100mm 2.8 USM Macro / EF 24-105mm IS / EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS Mk II / EF 1.4x II
Full Current and Previously Owned Gear List over 40 years Flickr Photostream (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Feb 04, 2010 05:10 |  #8

I see the 70-300 as an alternative to the 70-200/4L for FF or APS-H bodies where the extra length or IS outweighs the 'L' features. I don't see a place for it on an APS-C (20D onward) as easily since the release of the EF-S 55-250 IS.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Feb 04, 2010 05:25 as a reply to  @ msowsun's post |  #9

From another forum: (external link)

"This is a hidden gem in the Canon lineup, a standard EF lens with the performance of L-series glass."

"The lens is contrasty, pretty quick autofocus, quiet, light, and sharp. Frankly, it's sharper than some L glass I have. It's got great range."

"Find a sharp copy and you got yourself an awesome deal, better then the L."

"...even pixel peeping I had a tough time distinguishing the 70-300 photos from those of the "L" lenses."

"Highly recommended telephoto lens (if you cannot afford L's)!"

"I have used many tele-zooms over the years: Tamron 80-210mm, Tokina 80-200mm, Zuiko 65-200mm, Zuiko 50-250mm, Canon 75-300mm Mk 1, Canon EF 70-210mm USM and non USM, Sigma 70-300mm APO, Tamron 55-200mm, Canon 55-250mm IS.I would wager this lens beats them all optically, and most in terms of construction quality."

"Go buy it and you won't be disappointed."

"really rather excellent IQ"

"this lens is very good at the low end and still sharp wide open."

"This is a very good lens, espically the IS function, it helps a lot when I shoot at 300mm range."

"This is one great lens."

"There's times I want something light, compact and this delivers in spades. A lot of lens for the money."

"I highly recommend this lens and give it a '10' based on the price/performance and compared to what else is out there."

"I was amazed at the results produced with this lens. This is supposed to be Canon's consumer lens; however, it produces excellent results."

"I would highly recommend this lens to anyone needing this focal length."

Hard to understand how there is "...a complete lack of support for that lens" or how the 70-300mm IS USM is "completely ignored."




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceegee
Goldmember
2,320 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Montreal, Quebec
     
Feb 04, 2010 07:24 |  #10

xarqi wrote in post #9535962 (external link)
Stick with the 55-250 IS until you can afford the 70-200/4L IS (or the 2.8) or 100-400. The biggest advantage the 70-300 has over the 55-250 is that it is an EF lens, and that doesn't matter in your case.

This is great advice. I've owned both the 55-250 and the 70-300 (at the same time), and in the end I sold the 70-300 and kept the 55-250. In terms of image quality there's no discernable difference - both are good lenses. There's no real difference in focusing speed either - both are fairly slow to focus. However, I much preferred the IS system on the 55-250, along with the more compact size. The price difference was a big factor too. Here in Canada, the 70-300 is more than twice the price of the 55-250, but IMHO, based on my experience, it's certainly not twice the lens. The 55-250 has served me well and has given me some terrific images.

The 70-200 f/4 IS, on the other hand, is in a completely different league.


Gear: Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24 f/4, Canon 24-105L f4, Canon 70-300L, Canon 60 macro f/2.8, Speedlite 580 EXII, 2x AB800

Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MichSt
Goldmember
Avatar
1,088 posts
Gallery: 109 photos
Likes: 219
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Lansing, MI
     
Feb 04, 2010 07:53 |  #11

I agree with the others...sick with the 55-250 until you can afford and/or are ready to step up to a 70-200 or 100-400 lens.

Also, I think the 55-250 is the reason you don't hear much about the 70-300 IS any more. The 70-200 vs 70-300 IS threads use to pop-up all the time here when those were the only two mid-price range tele zoom options. But, for crop camera users the 55-250 changed all that.


Mario.Q

Canon EOS R

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
probe1957
Member
Avatar
107 posts
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Central IL
     
Feb 04, 2010 08:45 |  #12

pol024 wrote in post #9535840 (external link)
I just really cant justify $1200 for a lens at the moment,

Of course you can justify it if you enjoy the hobby and have the money.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
crn3371
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,198 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2005
Location: SoCal, USA
     
Feb 04, 2010 10:08 |  #13

MichSt wrote in post #9538635 (external link)
The 70-200 vs 70-300 IS threads use to pop-up all the time here when those were the only two mid-price range tele zoom options. But, for crop camera users the 55-250 changed all that.

I totally agree. When it was first introduced it was favorably reviewed and a viable option to the 70-200 f4 (non-IS). Once the 55-250 was introduced the 70-300 IS has pretty much dropped out of sight. It is still a decent lens, but when the 55-250 can be had for less than half the price it kind of becomes a no-brainer.




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

2,159 views & 0 likes for this thread
long zooms - IS and the full gamut
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
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 J4CK
1029 guests, 359 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.