I'm looking for a new telephoto lense to replace my 75-300mm (non-USM).
I was intersted in the 100-400mm L IS, and the 70-300mm IS. But the only "problems" with each are the price tag on the 100-400mm, and the age of the 70-300mm.
Does anyone have any experience with the 70-300mm IS? I'm a little unsure of how the image quality from the lense would be, especially since it was the 1st IS lense ever made by Canon.
Your misinformed, the 70-300 F/4-5.6 is NOT the first IS lens made by Canon, it has mode 1 and 2 IS (2nd gen)
I have one, picked it up for $550.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show ... =27&page=3
Great lens, I enjoy it, it has worked well for me, even in the worst of weather it still performs fairly well
If you would like some sample images, my Jetphotos photos are 90% 70-300 IS (The non- 70-300 IS ones will say so in the "lens used" field) http://jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=23226
nwa FOREVER!
Don't waste your time and money and go with an "L".
Chris - how is the reach on the 300mm you are using now? If you find you are reaching the limits on it when shooting, it may be worthwhile to go with the 100-400. Yes, it is pricey, but you won't be disappointed with that lens. Don't know what your timeline is, but the next time I'm out in NEPA, I'd be glad to get together with you and let you try it out.
KC-135 - Passing gas & taking names!
http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=15086
http://moose135.smugmug.com
Thats not an option for all of us.Originally Posted by SP-LPB
Like Chris said, the price of the 100-400 L is fairly high, I need at least 300mm (wish I had more sometimes), so the 70-200 L is out. Based on the test graphs, the 70-200 F/4 L and the 70-300 IS are practically the same image quality, so therefore the 70-300 IS was the clear choice for me
nwa FOREVER!
Jakub going with the 70-300 IS is not a waste of money at all. The lens has been given top notch ratings and performs almost equally to the L glass models.
Tommy that lens is for vacation photography, taking night shoots at Time Square. Ask anyone and fixed f/4 or 2.8 is way better than then f/ 4.5-5.6, the IS feature is not needed in aviation photography. Shooting in good light is key, the IS feature is built in to allow shooting in poor light conditions. Once you have good light IS is not needed. Don't base your options just upon the IS feature.
"L" lens doesn't only mean 100-400. I had 70-200 f/4 on my mind. Amazon lists it at $578. Matt to be honest with you, you got the worst part of the deal. Compare "L" glass (70-200 f/4) which costs $578 to the $549 70-300 IS.
Needing -300, I think is redundant. It's becoming a rule to get a lens that's -300+. Any user of a 100-400 can tell you that they notice a decrease in quality once full 400mm is shot at. Majority of airports around the world offer numerous spots where -200 is more than enough.
Not quite,
The 70-300 IS isn't just the 70-300 III with IS tacked on, its a near-L lens, different optics alltogether.
Look at the test graphs, they are nearly the same image quality.
Your falling for the marking ploy of the letter "L" the only thing that the 70-200 L has over the 70-300 IS is build quality, but the 70-300 IS has the reach of 300mm which is needed for me (and others alike) the 70-300 IS also maintains quality up to 300mm with little loss.
here is the MTF graph for the 70-300 IS
Here is the MTF for the 70-200 L
As you can see the 70-300 IS actually BEATS the 70-200 L in photo quality in some aspects. So the L argument is out here.... The 70-200 L is better in some instances in regards to image quality, but the 70-300 IS beats the 70-200 L in others....
Canon made the 70-300 IS as a step down from the 100-400 L, its a great lens that is the quality of L, if they bumped the build quality up and painted it white, it would be an L lens... I would reccomend it over the 70-200 L anyday!
70-300 IS review (with more test graphs)
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses ... /index.htm
70-200 L review (with more test graphs)
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses ... /index.htm
nwa FOREVER!
Jakub are you kidding me? First off IS is needed when shooting handheld at high focal lengths. The Canon 70-300 is not a vacation lens by any means. You're notion of only shooting in good light really is getting old... Photography isn't simply about "good light" a good photography knows how to shoot in almost any light and knows how to use their camera to manipulate the light. also not everyone can afford the 100-400 and the 70-300 non L makes a very attractive alternative that will produce outstanding results in the right hands.Tommy that lens is for vacation photography, taking night shoots at Time Square. Ask anyone and fixed f/4 or 2.8 is way better than then f/ 4.5-5.6, the IS feature is not needed in aviation photography. Shooting in good light is key, the IS feature is built in to allow shooting in poor light conditions. Once you have good light IS is not needed. Don't base your options just upon the IS feature.
"L" lens doesn't only mean 100-400. I had 70-200 f/4 on my mind. Amazon lists it at $578. Matt to be honest with you, you got the worst part of the deal. Compare "L" glass (70-200 f/4) which costs $578 to the $549 70-300 IS.
Needing -300, I think is redundant. It's becoming a rule to get a lens that's -300+. Any user of a 100-400 can tell you that they notice a decrease in quality once full 400mm is shot at. Majority of airports around the world offer numerous spots where -200 is more than enough.
Well said, you just said what I attempted to say above, but it just didn't come out well
nwa FOREVER!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks