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

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.d​e …non_70300_456is​/index.htm
http://www.pbase.com/f​stopjojo/70300is
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …=294&sort=7&cat​=27&page=2
http://www.photo.net …anon/70-300is/review.html
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …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.

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

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.

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

Dolphin in Tahiti

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

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

https://photography-on-the.net …entid=147453&d=​1171512750

https://photography-on-the.net …151224&stc=1&d=​1172722861

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

Lightstream wrote in post #1278577
These are the photos that conclusively prove to me that it's not the hardware, it's the operator: http://www.pbase.com …le/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?

Lightstream wrote in post #1278577
These are the photos that conclusively prove to me that it's not the hardware, it's the operator: http://www.pbase.com …le/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.

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.

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.

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'