Zoom Lens

[mopsy]

I’ve been shopping for the best price on a Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM and Amazon has it at $529. That’s a little pricey for my caliber of photography. What would you suggest that is just a notch below this particular lens?

[olavf]

I just recently got the 100-300 (non-IS) and I’m pretty happy with it. From what I read, DO NOT get the 70-300 non-IS. I think retail is around $300 but I found a gently used for just over $200.

[mopsy]

I just recently got the 100-300 (non-IS) and I’m pretty happy with it. From what I read, DO NOT get the 70-300 non-IS. I think retail is around $300 but I found a gently used for just over $200.

I need the image stabilizer. I have a very difficult time holding the camera still.

[olavf]

I just recently got the 100-300 (non-IS) and I’m pretty happy with it. From what I read, DO NOT get the 70-300 non-IS. I think retail is around $300 but I found a gently used for just over $200.

I need the image stabilizer. I have a very difficult time holding the camera still.

Personally, if I’m shooting at any kind of zoom, I need a tripod anyway. I don’t know how much the IS would help with that.

[Zumaki]

I just recently got the 100-300 (non-IS) and I’m pretty happy with it. From what I read, DO NOT get the 70-300 non-IS. I think retail is around $300 but I found a gently used for just over $200.

I need the image stabilizer. I have a very difficult time holding the camera still.

Personally, if I’m shooting at any kind of zoom, I need a tripod anyway. I don’t know how much the IS would help with that.

Yeah, and if you have IS on while using a tripod, it actually makes things worse.

[nobigdeal]

I’ve been shopping for the best price on a Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM and Amazon has it at $529. That’s a little pricey for my caliber of photography. What would you suggest that is just a notch below this particular lens?

I’ll sell you mine for $430 shipped UPS. It’s a year old, in mint condition and I have probably used it 20 times.

I am going to put it on eBay next week so let me know.

[mopsy]

I’ve been shopping for the best price on a Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM and Amazon has it at $529. That’s a little pricey for my caliber of photography. What would you suggest that is just a notch below this particular lens?

I’ll sell you mine for $430 shipped UPS. It’s a year old, in mint condition and I have probably used it 20 times.

I am going to put it on eBay next week so let me know.

Is it that you don’t like the lens, or just don’t find a use for it? There are so many times that I think I could use one. Would love to photograph the eagles around here, or the river otter sliding on the ice, or the moon. My present lenses just don’t bring things in close enough. Let me think on yours. I’ll have an answer by the weekend.

[nobigdeal]

The lens is good for what it is. It works fantastic as a mid range zoom and portrait lens. They all are a bit soft at long focal lengths and the IS is really no help at 300 mm. You really need a tripod at that length.

My moon shots were taken with this lens.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1036/3168888944_5606f11bfe_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3355/3265352776_11510e5b7f_o.jpg

I really don’t use it much and I want to get a 10-22 or a 17-55 f2.8. I have a 70-200L lens that I use regularly when I need a longer zoom.

[jpatten]

I have a Sigma 70-300. It can be a bit soft at 300 but I like it pretty well. It does best with plenty of light though and my AF tends to search with it. But with it has given me some really great results .. I heard the Canon 70-300 is very soft at 300 though

[olavf]

I’ve heard nothing good about the Canon 70-300 either. The 100-300 is supposed to be much better overall.

This is w/ the 100-300mm non-IS, @300mm in evening light. Hand-held. (well my elbows were propped on my knees).

Not super, but not too bad, IMO.

[U-Man]

I’ve heard nothing good about the Canon 70-300 either.

I haven’t used this lens, but from what I have read, it is as NBD put it – good for what it is. I personally like the IS feature on my lenses because (at this point in my hobby) I rarely use a tripod if there is enough light.

Can anybody recommend a better lens with similar range that costs about the same?

[jpatten]

The Sigma 70-300 is around 250 (if I remember) and is a sharper lens, but has no IS.

[Elsinore]

Yeah, unfortunately, the third party options don’t have IS typically. I want to like the Sigma lenses, but their quality control is kinda hit or miss.

I have a Canon 75-300mm IS, which is the lens the 70-300mm replaced. It’s ok, and I’m ready to part with it (I have a 70-200L non-IS I replaced it with), but you have to understand it’s just hard to cram that many focal lengths into one lens and have superb image quality throughout the range. Like No Big Deal said, it’s good for what it is (due to the extreme focal range). These lenses have the capability to be sharp when they’re stopped down some, and the IS absolutely helps.

[soosh]

there is always the 100-400L IS option, which is what I have. Yes, it’s expensive as hell, but it’s a very very versatile lens.

I do want a 70-200L, though. And a 300 f/4. And a 400 f/2.8….

[jpatten]

Well Given my budget constraints, I have to see if I can afford to drool at the L lenses 🙂

[Author]

Posts