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

04/17/2007 02:48:15 AM · #1

This if for those that currently own this lense.

This lense is an f/4-5.6. At which focal lengths does it change its f/stops?
Is it sharp up to 200mm and satisfactory from 200-300? (this would be an advantage over the 70-200 - great to 200 but a bit less sharp to the 300).
Do you find it fast enough for what you do?
General evaluation.

Thanks

skylercall

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/17/2007 04:13:41 AM · #2

I may get slaughtered for saying this but I have rented/borrowed the 70-200 f/2.8 three times now and even it isn't fast enough sometimes.

04/17/2007 06:41:56 AM · #3

Not sure where it switches. I usually don't pay attention to the aperture, just the speed. Sharp considering - I usually use it in extremes. A few examples:

Shot at 6.3, ISO320, handheld (IS comes in handy) at 1/125. 200mm

shot at 5.6, ISO200, handheld at 1/250. 300mmm
you can see how much of this was cropped (original size attached)

shot at 5.6, ISO800, 1/800, 300mm

I typically use it as a carry around lens for shooting people candids and daytime sports. Comes in handy as it focuses pretty close (says its a macro but my 100mm gets closer). Sharp, but I've never blown up any image from it greater than 11X14. Not because I couldn't, I've just never had a reason to. I like the lens - lighter and more portable than my 100-400L (my favorite lens) and much sharper than my 70-300 which I no longer use.

As you can see from the football picture, the lens has its limits - they all do. The IS is a great benefit for slower shutter speeds. I typically use it at extremes but I've been doing it for a few years - with this particular lens for a year. I know how it can be pushed and I know how to compensate. Plenty of people say its slow - it is, relatively. Practice using it a lot and it'll work for you.

This lens is not a replacement for the 100-400L but the 100-400L is not a replacement for it either. Same goes for the 70-200L. All have a place in your bag. Just build your bag as you can.

Many people opt for the 1.4 tele to add to the 70-200. You lose shutter speed and add another layer of glass, make it longer, heavier, and more noticeable. I choose not to. That's all it is a choice. My choice for my next lens is the 70-200L 2.8. But it will not replace my 70-300 for everyday shooting.

Hope this rambling helps. In the end, I recommend the lens as an everyday long telephoto, useful for many situations, easy to carry, and pretty sharp. I don't recommend it for indoor sports (except hockey)or night shooting handheld. But, I don't recommend most lenses for those.

oops. gotta post more often.

Message edited by author 2007-04-17 06:43:37.

04/20/2007 05:19:18 AM · #4

I was nearly going to start a new thread - until I noticed this one.So I'll add it here.

Dahkota - you nearly answered all the questions I had in mind. I was in a camera shop this afternoon - looking at the 17-40 f4L and the 70-200 f4L. I had never held/tried the 70-200 before and I must admit I was slightly disappointed. The optics, I am sure are first rate (I can't really tell inside a shop) but the build wasn't what I expected.
I know the 70-200 f4 isn't weather sealed - so this got me thinking.
I read a review of the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS which gave it a fantastic review (optical - up to L glass) but the build wasn't fantastic.
If it is as optical as good (or near) I see the IS making up for the smaller apeture (because you can get slower shutter speeds). Also you have the extra 100 m reach on the 70-300.

Although there is no doubting the f4 L lens would be built better - neither are weather sealed so that margin narrows slightly.

Dahkota - you shot with both L glass and the 70-300 IS, have you noticed a big difference between the two ?

Or anyone else own both or have done a comparison ?

04/20/2007 06:47:57 AM · #5

I've had the 75-300 non IS, the 70-300IS and the 100-400L IS.

Overall, when looking at 4.5-5.6, the first big difference is the IS.
The 75-300 was non IS and non sharp and slow. I had a high miss rate as camera shake, even in brighter light (1/400), was a factor. Also, the lens just didn't resolve well. It was best at speeds above 1/1000.
I then got the 100-400L - my favorite lens. It too is slow but the IS compensates some. I now have crystal clear images at 100% viewing with speeds as low as 1/160 handheld. It is best at about 1/400 and up though.
Then I got the 70-300IS. The 100-400L is heavy, long, and eye-catching. The 70-300IS is not. But, it is also not L glass and there is a slight difference. I don't get the degree of clarity at 100% viewing that I do on the 100-400L. Its good, just a step behind.

Now, if I had to choose between:
1. regular lens - no IS, no L
2. IS lens, no L
3. L lens, no IS
For what I shoot, I would chose the IS lens over the others. Extremely sharp glass is great but if you're handholding at less than optimal conditions,its not going to do you much good. You can have the sharpest lens made and, if the sun is setting or its cloudy or the wind is blowing you're either going to get some camera shake or you have to up the ISO and have grain.

So, in the end, my L glass has IS. This gives it an edge over the non-L IS lens. If it didn't have IS, I would prefer the non-L IS lens if only because the number of keepers would be higher. The sharpness difference isn't really noticeable at web size and prints under 8X10.

As for build, ask anyone who has been out shooting with me - I treat my lenses like crap. I have dropped them, hung them out of car windows, slung them around, etc. They have all survived. Well, almost - I lost one lens to rain - a sigma that was supposedly 'better built.' It was really only a strong mist-like day but the lens crapped out. I have used all my lenses in the rain and in the dust and in the sand with really not much of a problem.

Hope this rambling helps... As I said before, my next lens will be the 70-200L 2.8. Of course, it will have IS. If they made an optically excellent (like the 70-300IS) 2.8 non-L with IS, I would seriously consider it. For what I shoot and how I print, it wouldn't be enough of a difference.

Oh, and if you can get the 16-35L instead of the 17-40L - go for it. Another dream lens on my list...

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

04/20/2007 08:32:55 AM · #6

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

surfdabbler

Canon EOS-5D

04/20/2007 08:35:11 AM · #7

Thanks Dahkota for the ramblins. It was actually very informative. :)

Aha Tajhad - beat me to it. :)

Message edited by author 2007-04-20 08:36:03.

alexgarcia

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

04/20/2007 08:47:19 AM · #8

Hi, here goes my knowledge about this lens. First of all I do not own nor have used never an L, so I cannot compare. But without comparing I'm very, very happy with this lens. It's funny reach so near. I use them many time at 300, and love the results.
Some examples:

For me they're enough (by now), and the extra reach till 300 does well for me.

Juast an opinion...

Ã�lex.

EDIT: All the photos are handheld. The IS does work.

Message edited by author 2007-04-20 08:48:36.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/20/2007 08:47:33 AM · #9

I also appreciate the ramblings! I have the 70-200 f4/L, which in strong light or tripod situations is great, but I, too, find that I really need IS. That said, my walkaround lens is my 24-105 f4/L IS which pretty much does most everything I need it to. I still have issues with focus when I try to get very close to something, though. Thinking perhaps I really need a lens more suited that that - a macro or prime or something.

04/20/2007 09:39:51 AM · #10

Gee - Dahkota -you now have me thinking. I was all set on getting the 70-200 f4L (my first L glass) until I went and had a feel of it today. I also read a few reviews of the 70-300 IS (which were favourably -except for the build quality).
Now I'm wondering if the IS might be better. I basically want it for a travel lens - so the extra reach and the IS might be a real option.
Decisions , decisions.
Your logical and unbias reply has now got me in a quandry !!
Oh bugger !! Why does life have so many choices ?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

04/20/2007 10:03:16 AM · #11

Originally posted by Tajhad:

One thing I learned - IS compensates some, but not a lot, for the vibrations in a car, train, or plane. You may not even realize there is vibration, but trust me. Also, each vibrates to its own frequency. I have found that, even with IS, you might need to shoot at higher speeds.

Using as a travel lens - 70-300 is lighter so walking won't bother you as much. 70-300 doesn't scream "I have money!" to every mugger out there. There are more opportunities to use it because of the IS and the longer reach. If something does go wrong, 75% of the time the better build quality wouldn't have helped (stolen, lost, dropped, etc.). Can't argue price as you are looking at 2 similarly priced lenses.

If you are going to be traveling less than 30 days, you may have the option of returning the lens after your trip if you decide you don't like it. Also, before you go, you could try one and exchange it for the other to test both. I buy lens locally at brick and mortar 90% of the time for just this reason. Its definitely worth the extra $25-50.

PhotoDave

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/20/2007 10:03:31 AM · #12

I also bought the 70-300IS and love it. Before buying it though I managed to find a store that rented me that one and a 70-200F4L. I found both to be nice and sharp but the IS on the 70-300 won me over. As far as build quality goes I think the 70-300 is not that bad on mine anyway, everything is nice and snug but moves great and the AF seems to be quite quick. Below is a few pics taken with the 70-300IS and there are more in my portfolio and pretty much all of them are handheld...

-dave

here's a full frame and a 100% crop

splidge

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

04/20/2007 10:31:30 AM · #13

I've been back and forth on this subject myself. But I eventually decided on the 70-200 f/4L IS - it's now just a matter of getting hold of one!

It costs quite a bit more but I figured that if I got the 70-300 I'd ask myself "what if" whenever a shot wasn't quite as sharp as I'd like. I think this would be much more of a problem for me than thinking "I could have saved money with the 70-300". If having less reach really bugs me I can get a 1.4X; 280mm f/5.6 isn't far off 300mm f/5.6. And I'm pretty sure that if I went for the non-IS 70-200 I'd be regularly cursing the lack of IS.

And for me it was quite an easy decision to rule out the f/2.8 IS which costs and weighs twice as much and is similar IQ-wise.

The only telephoto lens I have at the moment is a very cheap Sigma 55-200. Using it last week at the zoo I found myself frustrated by the lack of IS (i.e. camera shake) and lack of sharpness far more than the lack of reach - which sealed the deal for me.

So, my personal recommendation would be get the 70-200 f/4L IS if you can afford it and can live without 300mm (although there's always the teleconverter option), otherwise get the 70-300 IS. Stay away from the non-IS lenses unless you are very sure that you won't need it.

splidge

04/21/2007 05:14:35 AM · #14

Thanks to those that have replied.

dakota, dknourek and alexgarcia. A few questions please seeing you have the lens and can answer them for me. How sharp are the shot straight from the camera? At what focal lengths does the f change. How sharp is the lens through the range - is is 'really sharp' from 70-200 and then still 'sharp' from 200-300 or is it rather 'soft' from 200-300?

Both of your shots are great that you have supplied. Nicely suprised at the concert ones. I wouldn't have thought there was much light yet you have got the trumpet player hand held at 1/100 at iso 800 - it's a great image. How did it look before pp - just interested in what things look like right from the camera.

70-200 is nice but the extra 100 (to 300) is very handy to have also. Don't want to add a lens inbetween as I think having to do this each time would annoy me.

I'm a bit like Tajhad - trying to decide between this lense and the 70-200 f4 USM. The 70-200 f4 IS USM is doulbe the price but still considering it also.

If anyone else has the lens your comments would be greatly appreciated.

Message edited by author 2007-04-21 07:48:24.

fredahenry

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/21/2007 06:02:30 AM · #15

I love my Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM.
It's not heavy. The only thing which not satisfying me is
the grain..it's a abit grainy or because i don't really know how to use it? *lol*

here some shots i took with it.
This one was taken with full 300mm focal lenght

and this one too.

and of course i would love to own Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS EF USM.
I had tried it once and really heavy but the sharpness is simply amazing and the dof is gorgeous.

04/21/2007 06:40:53 AM · #16

I'm the same as you RamblinR - can't decide between the 70-200 f4 or the 70-300 IS. The 70-200 f4IS is not even in the picture due to price.

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/21/2007 08:54:27 AM · #17

Okay, I cropped some unedited RAW and jpeg files:

Original Raw file downsized, 1/400, F5, 200 ISO

100% crop raw 100% crop medium jpeg

The jpeg has in camera sharpening, noise reduction, contrast boost
Thing to remember - focusing from 10-15 feet away on something the size of a pinky nail is not an easy task - you take what you can get. Would have been improved if I had used ISO400 and a smaller aperture.

Original RAW file downsized, 1/400, F5, 200 ISO

100% crop RAW 100% crop medium jpeg

Same notes as above...

100% crop Raw file 100% crop medium jpeg file

These were shot at 400ISO, 1/800, F5.6 on an overcast day

I probably have better ones, one that would show the lens in optimal conditions - bright light, ISO100, shutter speeds above 1/1000 or non-moving subjects, but then you wouldn't see the actual average use results.

TJinGuy

Nikon Coolpix 2100

04/21/2007 09:27:05 AM · #18

Originally posted by Tajhad:

I'm the same as you RamblinR - can't decide between the 70-200 f4 or the 70-300 IS. The 70-200 f4IS is not even in the picture due to price.

I too am in exactly the same boat here and have been going back and forth for a few days now. I like the 70-300 IS for the IS and reach but the 70-200 f/4L has superior optics. I think I have settled on the f/4L and my only complaint is that it is not weather sealed like all of it's big brothers. As for the reach, it can be adjusted with the available teleconverters but that does cost more money. Many say the f/4L is sharper than the 70-300 IS even with a 1.4x on it.

04/21/2007 09:47:34 AM · #19

Thanks Courtenay
You really are putting a lot into your responses. Thanks for going to so much trouble.
As a owner and user of L quality glass (I noticed you have a few) how much difference do you notice in the optical quality between this lens and your others (the L's). Obviously there is a build quality - but how much difference, in your opinion, is there in the image quality ?
Your shots look pretty darn good to me.

Just realised this is a pretty unfair question - you are going to have differnet opinions for different lenses (L's or not) - but I think you know what I am driving at.

04/21/2007 09:51:13 AM · #20

Thanks Dahkota, excellent shots.

I think my decision will not be made until after I have had a chance to handle the lenses. Discuss pros and cons with the salesman. Decide exactly how much I want to spend. And then I will choose (well I hope I can make a decision by then anyway). It's all too much. Wish me luck.

04/21/2007 10:01:11 AM · #21

Hey Tajhad,

I notice you have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (another lens I am looking at). How is the sharpness of this lens and general performance?

I also have an old 75-300 lens. I used it for a football match (in good light) and whilst it's focusing is slow, no IS or USM and the pictures are soft, some of the shots are reasonable. I'm thinking that if the new 70-300 IS USM is as good as discussed on some forums and reviews that it would beat my old lens hands down and that might be all I need. I gather you are thinking like this also. Money also comes into play when the IS for the 70-200 L4 is double the price. Are the pictures doubly good? The 70-200 F2.8 is usm is to big and heavy for my needs (maybe one day when I can justify the cost I might go for it) but its got to be one of the others for now.

There is also the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which receives great reviews and has a better price tag. Another one to look at at the camera store I think.

Today I went to a football match and used my 18-200 sigma. This lens performed better than the 75-300 canon that I own (focused faster) but the shots are soft. I took it to see if I could handle just having the 200 range. Obviously 300 would be better but I could probably work with 200 if need be I think.

Message edited by author 2007-04-21 10:08:01.

04/21/2007 10:19:19 AM · #22

Originally posted by Tajhad:

There is a difference in quality. I probably would not blow up an image from the 70-300 beyond 8X10 unless the image was taken in optimal conditions (ISO100, 1/1000+ shutterspeed).

unedited raw file at 400ISO, 400mm, 100-400L,

unedited medium jpeg at 400ISO, 400mm, 1/850, 100-400L

I can blow up RAW files from the 100-400L to at least 16X20 up to 400ISO.

I chose the 100-400L because of the reach. I chose the 70-300 because of the portability. When I get the 70-200 2.8L IS, I will use it mostly for sports. And, like the 100-400L, its not a lens you want to carry around for hours or use for street work (at least I wouldn't). Since the 70-200 F4L would not give me anything I don't already have, I wouldn't buy it. But, no I can't say that - I wouldn't consider it even if I didn't have the lenses I already have if only because I would want more - either IS, longer reach, or faster lens.

Hope this helps some more...

04/22/2007 02:46:43 AM · #23

Thanks again dahkota - you're a marvel.

RamblinR - in regards to the Tamron (probably Courtenay could answer this better).
Just to give you a little bit of background. I orginally was shooting film - hence had a 28-75 and 75-300 canon. I used them mainly for travel photography. It was only when I got into digital (and this site) that I realised these lenses arent that good.
When I got the Tamron - I orginally wasn't sure about it. But now I think it is great. Focus is noiser than the canons - but thats no big issue. Clarity of shots very good. Build is very solid (heavier and bigger than the canons)and the f2.8 is very handy. It is the lens I use the most. If you look in my portfolio -"Enforced Savings", "On Guard', "10 Eyes" - you can judge for yourself. The zoom to 75 handy enough for street stuff. It's not a true macro - but that feature is also handy - "From the Mud" was one done with the Macro. For the moment I am happy with the Tamron for my 28-75 range. It is the range either side I am now looking at (below 28 and above 75).

My experience with good lenses is non-existant but I must admit my love of the 75-300 came to an end fairly early. If fact I have only one shot on this site using this lens - "Life on the Streets". I like the shot but I think it worked because I keep it well away from the 300 mark. Most other shots I haven't been happy with.

I can only afford one new lens. Ideally I would love to own a whole bag of L lenses - but that aint going to happen, so I am looking for the best "bang per buck".
I orginally started another thread re lenses. On film I used the 75-300 a lot for travel photography. But now I use the Tamron 28-75 most. I'm about to start travelling a bit again (Indonesia/Brunei in July and India in Dec/Jan) and asked advice regarding what would be better - the 17-40 f4L or the 70-200 f4L. I wasn't 100% sure which one I would use the most. I thought the 70-200 would be the go until I went and had a look at it; read reviews of the 70-300 IS and this thread. Again I'm in a quandry.
I think Courtenay is right - I think the L glass will be a little too obvious and big for travel- so I'm back to wondering 17-40 f4L or 70-300 IS. Sorry mate - a bit long winded.

To answer your question regarding the Tamron. I'm certainly happy with it and have no intentions of replacing it in the near future. It covers that range well. Just remember that I've had no experience with good lenses tho but a lot of people (including Courtenay) seem happy with it.