Thanks to everyone who contributed to my previous thread for lens help for a newbie
I have been scouting around, and since I really dont have alot of money am wondering what you guys think to this one since I couldnt see that anyone referred to this one in my previous post
I am attracted because of price of course, but also the fact that is IS and has auto focus (my eyes arent great through a viewfinder sadly)
So if anyone has any experience of this I would love to know since there is one for sale not far from where I live .... and I am tempted ..but dont want to jump in since I am so new and not really got much of a clue yet
Thanks again chaps and chapesses
Sharon
Posted by Rene de Heer on January 7, 2008 at 8:04 AM
Sharon, i do not use this lens but fuond the enclosed review which tells me that it isnt a fantastic lens but for you ,as a starter,s lens, it might be good enough.
Don't worry about the autofocus on a lens - most lenses you'll get for the Canon these days are Autofocus. Manual focus ones are few and far between.
The 70-300IS is a decent enough lens for it's price. It's well made, the IS is effective, the focus is reasonably quick. Compared to the more expensive 'L' lenses, the things that let it down are the chromatic aberation (purple colour fringing), slower speed of focus, and lack of colour saturation/contrast. Against other lenses in the same price bracket as it, it compares well.
If you can stretch to the 100-400IS or can find a 2nd hand version then you'll get a far better lens for your money. Some other lenses to look at are the Sigma 50-500 or 170-500's. While they won't match the quality of the results from a Canon 100-400, they may give you a longer reach/bigger subject and may keep you going until you can budget for something bigger or find something bigger second-hand. Don't look at any of the basic Sigma 70-300's unless you want to do some macro. From direct experience, the speed of focus & quality of the results are lower than those from the 70-300IS.
Do you have a Jacobs photo/video shop near to you? If you do, then check to see if they have the different lenses that you might want to buy - if they do, then take your camera along to them and try the different lenses out in the shop. Take photos of the counters/displays and other shots through the windows, just get a feel of the lenses - take a shot of the box each time you change a lens and then you can tell which shots came from which lens. Don't buy there and then - instead take the photos you took home and look at them on the computer and see which results you prefer - you should be able the see differences in the colours and contrast.
What sort of photography are you looking at doing? Birds, Macro, Landscapes? Are you hoping to have work published at some point in the future, or do you just want to print them out for yourself? Answers to those questions will determine how much you should ultimately spend!
Posted by Paul Gibbs on January 7, 2008 at 9:54 AM
The newer 70-300 IS is ok, and i carry a 70-300 VR in my bag or on my D40 as a walk around lens.
If your after birds you'll rapidly find that 300mm is hardly enough. I have a few shots taken with one, but i'd look at the Sigma 50-500mm i found it very versatile and the image quality was very good.
The 70-300mm IS is a consumer lens, but at its price point is isn't a bad performer.
If you can squeeze a 100-400mm second hand Canon all the better, but IMHO (forgoeing the zoom) a second hand 300mm F4 IS with a 1.4 converter would be a better option if you are interested solely in Birds/Mammals.
Having owned one once I would not recommend a 170-500mm Sigma as the AF is simply to slow, try and stick to Canon telephotos if you have a Canon Body - wide angles and macros of any make/fit are fine.
T
Posted by Duncan Armour on January 9, 2008 at 7:31 AM
Sharon,
My wife and I use the 70-300mm IS and the 100-400mm L IS respectively as our walkaround lenses and for much of the time both are just fine (I like having the extra length from the 100-400, my wife doesn't like the extra weight of the 100-400 when hand-holding). The one area where the 70-300mm really falls down is for flight photography where the AF is much slower than the 100-400, to the point where we find the servo mode is pretty unusable on a 40D with the 70-300. We've actually been considering trading it in for a 70-200mm f4 LIS and forgoing even more length as a consequence.
Discussion
5 repliesI have been scouting around, and since I really dont have alot of money am wondering what you guys think to this one since I couldnt see that anyone referred to this one in my previous post
I am attracted because of price of course, but also the fact that is IS and has auto focus (my eyes arent great through a viewfinder sadly)
So if anyone has any experience of this I would love to know since there is one for sale not far from where I live .... and I am tempted ..but dont want to jump in since I am so new and not really got much of a clue yet
Thanks again chaps and chapesses
Sharon
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Rene de Heer
Don't worry about the autofocus on a lens - most lenses you'll get for the Canon these days are Autofocus. Manual focus ones are few and far between.
The 70-300IS is a decent enough lens for it's price. It's well made, the IS is effective, the focus is reasonably quick. Compared to the more expensive 'L' lenses, the things that let it down are the chromatic aberation (purple colour fringing), slower speed of focus, and lack of colour saturation/contrast. Against other lenses in the same price bracket as it, it compares well.
If you can stretch to the 100-400IS or can find a 2nd hand version then you'll get a far better lens for your money. Some other lenses to look at are the Sigma 50-500 or 170-500's. While they won't match the quality of the results from a Canon 100-400, they may give you a longer reach/bigger subject and may keep you going until you can budget for something bigger or find something bigger second-hand. Don't look at any of the basic Sigma 70-300's unless you want to do some macro. From direct experience, the speed of focus & quality of the results are lower than those from the 70-300IS.
Do you have a Jacobs photo/video shop near to you? If you do, then check to see if they have the different lenses that you might want to buy - if they do, then take your camera along to them and try the different lenses out in the shop. Take photos of the counters/displays and other shots through the windows, just get a feel of the lenses - take a shot of the box each time you change a lens and then you can tell which shots came from which lens. Don't buy there and then - instead take the photos you took home and look at them on the computer and see which results you prefer - you should be able the see differences in the colours and contrast.
What sort of photography are you looking at doing? Birds, Macro, Landscapes? Are you hoping to have work published at some point in the future, or do you just want to print them out for yourself? Answers to those questions will determine how much you should ultimately spend!
If your after birds you'll rapidly find that 300mm is hardly enough. I have a few shots taken with one, but i'd look at the Sigma 50-500mm i found it very versatile and the image quality was very good.
The 70-300mm IS is a consumer lens, but at its price point is isn't a bad performer.
If you can squeeze a 100-400mm second hand Canon all the better, but IMHO (forgoeing the zoom) a second hand 300mm F4 IS with a 1.4 converter would be a better option if you are interested solely in Birds/Mammals.
Having owned one once I would not recommend a 170-500mm Sigma as the AF is simply to slow, try and stick to Canon telephotos if you have a Canon Body - wide angles and macros of any make/fit are fine.
T
My wife and I use the 70-300mm IS and the 100-400mm L IS respectively as our walkaround lenses and for much of the time both are just fine (I like having the extra length from the 100-400, my wife doesn't like the extra weight of the 100-400 when hand-holding). The one area where the 70-300mm really falls down is for flight photography where the AF is much slower than the 100-400, to the point where we find the servo mode is pretty unusable on a 40D with the 70-300. We've actually been considering trading it in for a 70-200mm f4 LIS and forgoing even more length as a consequence.
Duncan