First lens upgrade : 70-300mm f/4-5.6

Hi guys, I was stumbling around on google looking for sample images for a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and found this place. I was really pleased with some of the pictures the members here got and am wanting to get one myself now.

I have a Canon Rebel XS with the non IS kit lens. I hear complants about the non IS version and have been wanting to get myself a good lens and found the one I mentioned above. I have also heard many people using UV filters to protect their lens and was looking at getting a Hoya SUPER HMC UV Filter for mine as I heard some lower quality ones make the image worse. Do you all think that this is a good quality filter that will both protect and not distort my images? Also, I was wondering if I should also get a lens hood along with having the filter on at the same time too? Is it alright to get a third party hood? I have found the Canon ones to be pretty expensive for just a peice of plastic.

Edit: I got my lens in, and posted a picture.

The 70-300 IS is a decent lens; the 55-250 IS may offer better value. Avoid any of the 75-300s.
The 18-55 is an awful lens indeed, and the 18-55 IS is a great improvement.
The 70-300 won't be a suitable substitute for the 18-55 because of the very different focal length ranges.
Filters do nothing to protect lenses except in places where grit is flying.
A lens hood will. Get one and use it all the time.
I can't comment on third party hoods, sorry.

Oh - welcome aboard.

xarqi wrote in post #7713007
The 70-300 IS is a decent lens; the 55-250 IS may offer better value. Avoid any of the 75-300s.
The 18-55 is an awful lens indeed, and the 18-55 IS is a great improvement.
The 70-300 won't be a suitable substitute for the 18-55 because of the very different focal length ranges.
Filters do nothing to protect lenses except in places where grit is flying.
A lens hood will. Get one and use it all the time.
I can't comment on third party hoods, sorry.

Oh - welcome aboard.

From reviews I have read, the IQ of the 70-300 IS is better than the 55-250 IS. I realize that the 70-300 will not replace the range of the 18-55, but I like taking pictures in the ranges of what the 70-300 is designed for. I was thinking about going up to the mountains in the coming weeks to take some photos so I think this lens would do excel in this scenery. I was wanting to put a filter to protect it along with the hood just for additional "safety" as this is a big investment for me heh.

The filter you are asking about is very good.

A hood is always a good idea and, imo, there is nothing to be lost by buying a third party hood. I have them on my 10-22 and 85mm Canon's.

I won't get into whether a "protective" filter has any merits.

The 70-300 IS may be a bit sharper than the 55-250 IS, but I can't see that it is worth paying more than twice as much for. The 55-250 IS is extremely good value, especially for someone who is just starting out.

I am curious to know how you ended up with the non-IS 18-55. I thought all XS kits included the 18-55 IS.

I sold my 55-250 after ten months of use and upgraded to a 70-300is and I find it better in sharpness and contrast.

Example just taken recently

Very nice. Maybe it is worth the extra money. But how long will it be before you get L fever and trade up again?

ihaveworms wrote in post #7713040
From reviews I have read, the IQ of the 70-300 IS is better than the 55-250 IS.

The IQ of the 70-200/4L is better than that of the 70-300, and it is comparably priced (and much better built and with useful features like ring USM). That could be another option.

As mentioned though, the 55-250 is no slouch in the IQ department, and it is half the price of the 70-300 or 70-200/4L.

I was looking at the 70-200L, but wanted to go with one with IS. I don't think I will get L fever anytime soon as I am still in college and can't go out and spend $1000 on a lens at this point.

jbarber, that is an awesome picture and is an example of the kind of stuff I am looking for.

msowsun, I got the camera from a shop in canada over ebay. Everything was new and the box even stated on the side that it was the model without IS (ok it didn't say not IS, but it listed like model II lens or something like that). I did some googleing and found a couple of others who have found Rebel XSes that come without the IS lens. When I bought it, I thought all of them came with the image stabalized version, but I was mistaken . Oh well, $400 for a Rebel XS was still a good deal.

How long to trade up to 100-400. That is strictly a cost issue with me. I would have it right now but it was $1200 Cdn more than my 70-300is ($699). Some people seem made of money but I am not one of them. I also tried a 70-200is ($1299) before buying and while I liked the lens it was a lot more money and too short for my use (and before someone jumps in - sure I could use a tc for only another $400) I will not buy a telephoto without is.

Here's another sample

Hmm... Well as I have said I have the Rebel XS. Would this camera limit this lens to the point of it just not looking that great?

No. The Xs is fine. The 70-300 IS is as sharp as the 70-200 F4 in their respective ranges. The L has slightly more saturation. The 70-300 IS is a really good lens, and in fact rated more sharp than the 100-400 at Photozone. Also, save yourself some money and aovid the Canon lens hood. Just get a $10 one on eBay.

ihaveworms wrote in post #7712990
Hi guys, I was stumbling around on google looking for sample images for a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and found this place. I was really pleased with some of the pictures the members here got and am wanting to get one myself now.

I have a Canon Rebel XS with the non IS kit lens. I hear complants about the non IS version and have been wanting to get myself a good lens and found the one I mentioned above. I have also heard many people using UV filters to protect their lens and was looking at getting a Hoya SUPER HMC UV Filter for mine as I heard some lower quality ones make the image worse. Do you all think that this is a good quality filter that will both protect and not distort my images? Also, I was wondering if I should also get a lens hood along with having the filter on at the same time too? Is it alright to get a third party hood? I have found the Canon ones to be pretty expensive for just a peice of plastic.

HOYA SuperHMC is the top level of coatings that are available. Since the model you're asking about isn't a Pro1 version it has the thicker frame. But the glass is the same as the SuperHMC Pro1 versions. You can't go wrong with that filter.

msowsun wrote in post #7713077
The 70-300 IS may be a bit sharper than the 55-250 IS, but I can't see that it is worth paying more than twice as much for. The 55-250 IS is extremely good value, especially for someone who is just starting out.

that was also my decision and I'm quite pleased with the 55-250 IS image quality and smaller size & weight.

I owned both the 70-300 and the 55-250 at the same time, and opted in the end to sell the 70-300 and keep the 55-250. Optically there was virtually no difference; both are very good lenses. In terms of AF speed, no noticeable difference either. I preferred the smaller, more compact format of the 55-250, and in my opinion its IS system is better. Cost was a factor too; the 70-300, here in Canada, costs more than twice as much as the 55-250, but IMHO is nowhere near twice the lens.

Here is a bird shot taken with the 55-250, wide-open at 250 mm. I've been extremely satisfied with this lens.

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