"CANON EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM" Slow lens?

PixelTrawler

Hi

Looking for a decent entry level zoom lens with image stabilization. I've been reading a fair bit on the CANON EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and I have one question I can't get an exact answer too. Maybe you guys can help?

Is this lens considered a slow lens with f/4-5.6? And if this can be answered how slow is it compared to say some of the really expensive Canon L series at f2.8

I simply don't know enough about lens yet to understand how much of a difference this will make in use.

Also, is there a better alternative sub a grand say?

Cheers

georgey

I dont think there is any alternative for under a grand, maybe 70-200 F4 IS try ebay or B&H, I'm not sure if you want to know if this lens is slow in regards to AF or in terms of F stops??? It's actually slow in regards to both. This lens is a real buget lens it is soft at both ends of the focal range has slow AF and of course as you have said has a minimum ap of 4-5.6. I got rid of mine very quickly and got a 70-200 2.8 IS.
philip

DaireQuinlan

I'm not a big fan of those zooms. I got one quite a while ago (a Nikon 4.5->5.6 75->300 AF) and I've found that it doesn't get out that much. 5.6 on the far end is just slowww. With IS/VR then I guess you're set for taking pictures of static stuff but I generally find myself trying to use it for sports/wildlife for which it's pretty useless except with super fast film and even then on a sunny day. The problem is of course that fast zooms are ridiculously expensive so you gotta weight that up.

Borderfox

I have a Sigma for sale if you want to take a look, click the link at the bottom of my sig and have a look?

PixelTrawler

georgey wrote:

I dont think there is any alternative for under a grand, maybe 70-200 F4 IS try ebay or B&H, I'm not sure if you want to know if this lens is slow in regards to AF or in terms of F stops??? It's actually slow in regards to both. This lens is a real buget lens it is soft at both ends of the focal range has slow AF and of course as you have said has a minimum ap of 4-5.6. I got rid of mine very quickly and got a 70-200 2.8 IS.
philip

Hi Georgey

I meant f stops alright

So you reckon its worth shelling out the extra cash on the 70-200 2.8 IS.
Even though this is only a 200mm lens you reckon overall its superior (It is an L class lens I guess) to the 300mm.

Since the zoom ability is also important to me would I be losing a lot of zooming power in the drop in size (Would it be roughly 3x instead of 4x). Lets say for basic wildlife, (obviously we're not talking about massive telephoto work here)

By the way I have seen the 70-200 2.8 IS for about 1100 on ebay from uk dealers. And the 70-300mm for about 460 - thats quite a jump in price!

Theres one other lens I've looked at and thats the 100-400mm L IS but i think its f4.

You don't happen to have any photos online taken with the 70-200 do you

TelePaul

I have the 70-300 IS. I like it, and I wouldn't consider it soft. Remember that with an L series lens, you're upping the bar to a whole other range. I think with the 70-300, you'd like to be able to shoot hand-held which, given the weather in this country, isn't really a dead certainty every time.

PixelTrawler

Oh i definitely want to shoot handheld. I have a tripod but its a pain to lug around and setup sometimes.

I suppose for 460 quid I could get the 70-300 and try it for a while. I could always sell it later and upgrade. Im still only learning at this game anyway. Shelling out 1100 for a lens is a bit much for me at the moment.

Damn gadget wallet sapping hobbies i have (I thought fishing & gaming were expensive for the accessories)!

Cheers guys.

TelePaul

Joebloggs4817 wrote:

Oh i definitely want to shoot handheld. I have a tripod but its a pain to lug around and setup sometimes.

I suppose for 460 quid I could get the 70-300 and try it for a while. I could always sell it later and upgrade. Im still only learning at this game anyway. Shelling out 1100 for a lens is a bit much for me at the moment.

Damn gadget wallet sapping hobbies i have (I thought fishing & gaming were expensive for the accessories)!

Cheers guys.

Don't be disappointed if you take it down the country in November on an overcats day and you've feck all to work with on your light metre!

rymus

next person that says "down the country" is going to get a kicking...


...in nicest possible way of course!

Muineach

Joebloggs4817 wrote:

Hi Georgey

I meant f stops alright

So you reckon its worth shelling out the extra cash on the 70-200 2.8 IS.
Even though this is only a 200mm lens you reckon overall its superior (It is an L class lens I guess) to the 300mm.

I had the same problem a while back, but I couldn't justify spending a grand on a lens so I got the 70-300mm you were talking about, if you take a look at my flickr, all of the fox photos and the Dublin zoo were taken with it, so if you want to see the real life photo's taken with it, take a look. As for softness, I tend to sharpen everything in PS (I don't let the camera sharpen), but it was sharper than my Sigma 80-300mm (200e'ish).

I think if you want to see the EXIF data i.e. what ISO and focal length etc. you may have to add me as a contact.

PixelTrawler

Nothing too wrong with them Muineach.
Beautiful animal too. You were blessed.

TelePaul

rymus wrote:

next person that says "down the country" is going to get a kicking...


...in nicest possible way of course!

Pfft woteva, the country frickin rocks.

Seán_B

georgey wrote:

I dont think there is any alternative for under a grand, maybe 70-200 F4 IS try ebay or B&H, I'm not sure if you want to know if this lens is slow in regards to AF or in terms of F stops??? It's actually slow in regards to both. This lens is a real buget lens it is soft at both ends of the focal range has slow AF and of course as you have said has a minimum ap of 4-5.6. I got rid of mine very quickly and got a 70-200 2.8 IS.
philip

I have the 70-200 f4 L and it is a brilliant lens. It's very sharp and a lot lighter than the f2.8, so great for travelling. There about €750 in the city centre camera shops, probably around €500 if you scout on the internet.

But, if you have the money, the IS version is supposed to be the business!

georgey

Sorry for the delay in replyin, the 100-400 is regarded as a real bang for your bucks lens if you think its fast enough (4-5.6) the IQ is great, it is about the same size and weight of the 70-200, it has a push pull zoom some find this akward but it is easy enough to adjust to and I quite like it (my friend has one) the push pull does raise some dust isssues but thats what rocket blowers are for!!!!!
This is my Flickr link and there a few shots on there with the 70-200
Have you considered the sigma 50-500 AKA Bigma, this lens has smashing IQ and great reach it is a little soft at 500mm but holds up well to a little USM.
flickr

Paulw

I have the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L and also the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS L. The extra range on the 100-400 is great when you have decent light. But, the 70-200 is faster (to focus) and much better in low light conditions. The 70-200 feels lighter (even though it is slightly heavier). A lot of the time I'd use the 70-200 quicker than the 100-400, depending on the situation.

PixelTrawler

Hi Georgey

I have read very little about the sigma 50-500mm. I was aware it existed and thats about it.

Thing thats the next thing to google so! Some many choices.

Nice photos too, cheers. The one of the hippo is very detailed. B&W was a good choice there.
I just added you as a contact there too so I can see the exif data for the photos.

Cheers also Paulw. I think at this stage I'll need a lotto win!

Its very hard to know what to get first. The low light ability of the 70-200mm is very appealing for woodland. Pity there isnt somewhere you can rent them to try.

Just thought of something... I know theres a trade off on quality but can you stick on a 1.4x or 2x converter along with the 70-200mm L
(Just read on canon.ie you can but how bad is the trade off on quality?)

georgey

Yep you can use both extenders I only have the 2x and I still bought the Bigma enough said!!!! IQ is really affected by the 2x however I hear there is no difference in IQ with the 1.4x. Just checked your sig and your in Galway you could have tried both of mine (70-200+Bigma)if I lived near ye, ah well!
Philip

Paulw

I have the 2x extender and do use it from time to time.

But, the 70-200mm f/2.8 then becomes a 140-400mm f/5.6 lens. You trade your f stops.

If you were in Dublin I could meet you sometime, and let you try out the 70-200mm and the 100-400mm.

PixelTrawler

Cheers for the offer Paulw and Georgey.

I do be up from time time so you never know!