 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006Canon 70-300mm IS USM or other brand/type?
I've recently bought a Canon EOS-350D camera body and a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5, so an additional zoom would probably be a nice addition to my setup. I take a lot of pictures while traveling so portability is important. I don't have unlimited funds either, but do want quality (don't we all) as opposed to buying the very cheapest available, only to buy something more expensive shortly thereafter to rectify the disappointment. So I've been looking at the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I think the image stabilizer might be useful for walk-around situations, even though I'll see if I can bring along a simple tripod on my trip. People argue that I would be better off with a Canon 70-200mm f/4L (because of the "L" optics I asume, or hype perhaps), but it doesn't have IS (which I believe is handy when traveling; not dedicated photography trips, but taking pictures in addition to being on holiday), and besides it costs more than the 70-300mm. Another things is that the white color would attract more attention than an "anonymous" black lens. I don't want to look like a press photographer/paparazzi ;-) Like I said, I do want good results, but I'm currently only a keen enthusiast without unlimited funds, so would I really *need* a 70-200mm "L" lens? Would I notice a lot of difference in my photos from the 70-300 (non-"L")? There is however a downside to the 70-300mm. I've heard that Canon has reported problems with some lenses and they have as yet to figure out what to do with the problem. I don't know the exact details, but I have a feeling I should wait a little longer to hear what Canon concludes with. But assuming that Canon will find a solution to the problem, is the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM a good lens and worth getting for my use? How about 3rd party lenses such as Sigma and Tokina? >I've recently bought a Canon EOS-350D camera body and a Sigma 17-70mm >f/2.8-4.5, so an additional zoom would probably be a nice addition to [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM a good lens and worth getting for my use? >How about 3rd party lenses such as Sigma and Tokina? I have the Canon 70-300. It is a nice lens. There are a couple of 'problems' with it. You can't over rule the focus in real time unless you switch to MF. When you point the camera down, the lens extends on its own accord. Not really big 'problems'. > I have the Canon 70-300. It is a nice lens. There are a couple of > 'problems' with it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not really big 'problems'. I agree. They don't sound like "problems" to me. But the issues that have been brought to Canon's attention do (lowered resolution when tilted sideways (portrait) I think). Have you had any such problems? The IS sound appealing to me when travlling around, and I assume it works well, but are you happy with the results? Does it take good, clear photos? I have a feeling the "L" lenses are pretty much hyped up. No doubt they're essential gear for professionals, but a lot of fans seem to say that "L" is the *only* way to go if you want good results. So that's what causes my doubts; becoming unsure if I should fork in the extra, hard earned cash for a 70-200mm while losing out on an additional 100mm, or paying less, getting IS and 100mm extra. >> I have the Canon 70-300. It is a nice lens. There are a couple of >> 'problems' with it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >resolution when tilted sideways (portrait) I think). Have you had any >such problems No I have not had any problems with the lens. So far I have not noticed problems with portrait mode. >The IS sound appealing to me when travlling around, and I assume it >works well, but are you happy with the results? Does it take good, >clear photos? Yes it takes excellent pictures. The IS works well. Every once in awhile the IS is a bit slow at 300mm, but I can live with that. >I have a feeling the "L" lenses are pretty much hyped up. No doubt >they're essential gear for professionals, but a lot of fans seem to say >that "L" is the *only* way to go if you want good results. So that's >what causes my doubts; becoming unsure if I should fork in the extra, >hard earned cash for a 70-200mm while losing out on an additional >100mm, or paying less, getting IS and 100mm extra. I have the 24-105 L lens. It is excellent, at a price. The 100 - 300 does a great job, also. No hype about "L" lenses, they are better... period. I had a 75-300 IS and the 70-200 f4 L is better in all respects except weight (heavier) and lenght (longer). The 70-300 IS (non DO) is supposed to be better than the lens I had (75-300 IS) but it surely will not be better than the 70-200 f4 L. IS works very well when the subject is motionless so for travelling pictures the image stabilisation may not offer much help. I travelled with a 75-300 IS but now my travelling tele zoom is a 70-200 f4 L along with a 1.4X teleconverter which gives me almost the same range with better quality. Sure it's more expensive, but well worth the investment. Buying cheap is always more expensive in the end, if I had bought this combo from the getgo I would be ahead dollar wise and picture quality wise. The faster focussing of the "L" lens alone may be the factor letting you get a good shot rather than a blurry one, IS or no IS. Jean > > I have the Canon 70-300. It is a nice lens. There are a couple of > > 'problems' with it. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > hard earned cash for a 70-200mm while losing out on an additional > 100mm, or paying less, getting IS and 100mm extra. > I've recently bought a Canon EOS-350D camera body and a Sigma > 17-70mm [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > something more expensive shortly thereafter to rectify the > disappointment. <Snap> > There is however a downside to the 70-300mm. I've heard that Canon > has [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM a good lens and worth getting for my use? > How about 3rd party lenses such as Sigma and Tokina? I'm not sure the 'problem' lens is the DO IS. I have no experience with the other 70-300 that may be the one you are considering. I wouldn't. http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=21 12&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922 This is from the EF-S 70-300 DO IS ; looks good to me: http://static.flickr.com/29/48793364_c4768eba9c_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/31/46275144_c60c2f28ea_o.jpg http://static.flickr.com/29/50562063_223bd4d8cf_o.jpg Several early images in this 20D demo/test album: http://www.fototime.com/inv/9407D6A7CECE8BF I like that lens. I have a 70-200 2.8L that produces pictures clearly superior in similar circumstances, but the difference is not worthwhile in most day-to-day applications. All may be off-point if it's the cheaper one you are looking at. I've read that it is actually quite good for most uses, but not in the same league as the others I've mentioned.  SignatureFrank ess >> I've recently bought a Canon EOS-350D camera body and a Sigma >> 17-70mm [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > This is from the EF-S 70-300 DO IS ; looks good to me: ------> Absolutely not EF-S OOPS! > http://static.flickr.com/29/48793364_c4768eba9c_o.jpg > http://static.flickr.com/31/46275144_c60c2f28ea_o.jpg [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > same > league as the others I've mentioned. > I've recently bought a Canon EOS-350D camera body and a Sigma 17-70mm > f/2.8-4.5, so an additional zoom would probably be a nice addition to [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM a good lens and worth getting for my use? > How about 3rd party lenses such as Sigma and Tokina? All those 70-300mm lenses are pretty "modest" when it comes to performance, so whichever you pick will give you about the same picture quality, which is to say not very good. >I've recently bought a Canon EOS-350D camera body and a Sigma 17-70mm >f/2.8-4.5, so an additional zoom would probably be a nice addition to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >image stabilizer might be useful for walk-around situations, even >though I'll see if I can bring along a simple tripod on my trip. The IS feature can be handy... >People argue that I would be better off with a Canon 70-200mm f/4L >(because of the "L" optics I asume, or hype perhaps), Definitely not hype. I have the 70-200 f/4 L on the same camera body and it's fantastic. Sharpness and contrast is among the best available. In fact, my f/4 is sharper than my friends f/2.8 IS version, likely because the IS optics reduce image quality just a tad, yet it's 1/3 the price. > but it doesn't >have IS (which I believe is handy when traveling; not dedicated >photography trips, but taking pictures in addition to being on >holiday), and besides it costs more than the 70-300mm. The difference in cost is well worth the improvement in image quality. >Another things is that the white color would attract more attention >than an "anonymous" black lens. I don't want to look like a press >photographer/paparazzi ;-) I used to be concerned with that, but only people who have any knowledge of cameras pay any attention. >Like I said, I do want good results, but I'm currently only a keen >enthusiast without unlimited funds, so would I really *need* a 70-200mm >"L" lens? Would I notice a lot of difference in my photos from the >70-300 (non-"L")? Depends on your photos. If all you want to do is make 4x6 snapshots, then you may be better off with the 70-300 IS. But if you want to make large prints to display, and show the digital images on your computer or a website at large sizes, then you'll definitely see the difference. >There is however a downside to the 70-300mm. I've heard that Canon has >reported problems with some lenses and they have as yet to figure out >what to do with the problem. I don't know the exact details, Canon has confirmed an image quality issue when the lense is rotated 90 degrees. Apparently the IS optics do not work 100% in portrait mode. >But assuming that Canon will find a solution to the problem, is the >70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM a good lens and worth getting for my use? The 70-300 is not that sharp when used wide open. You have to stop down to f/8 to get good sharpness out of it. The lense gets even softer when you zoom past 200mm. Resolution and contrast is lower than the f/4 lense, and it also suffers from some chromatic aberration (purple fringing). >How about 3rd party lenses such as Sigma and Tokina? I've never been overly impressed with third party lenses. They usually trade off one thing for another in order to keep costs lower. Personally I stick with the fast Ring-USM motors for quick autofocus, and L glass for optical quality. My two main lenses are the 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L. These two gems cover most of what I need and have excellent image quality and high performance that's difficult to beat at twice the price. >>I've recently bought a Canon EOS-350D camera body and a Sigma 17-70mm >>f/2.8-4.5, so an additional zoom would probably be a nice addition to [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >to f/8 to get good sharpness out of it. The lense gets even softer when >you zoom past 200mm. So how do you pronounce "lense"? Is it the same as "lens"? Or maybe "Lensy"? George SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > So how do you pronounce "lense"? Is it the same as "lens"? Or maybe > "Lensy"? Both spellings are considered correct. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com >> So how do you pronounce "lense"? Is it the same as "lens"? Or maybe >> "Lensy"? > > Both spellings are considered correct. All it takes is one person's consideration for this to be correct. "Lense" is considered incorrect, too. QED SignatureFrank ess >>> So how do you pronounce "lense"? Is it the same as "lens"? Or maybe >>> "Lensy"? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "Lense" is considered incorrect, too. QED I'm talking about dictionaries. The more comprehensive ones list both spellings, although "lens" is preferred. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com >> So how do you pronounce "lense"? Is it the same as "lens"? Or maybe >> "Lensy"? > >Both spellings are considered correct. You or anyone can consider any word to be correct. But you will not see lense used by reputable writers. It is just incorrect backformation from the plural. KS >>> So how do you pronounce "lense"? Is it the same as "lens"? Or maybe >>> "Lensy"? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You or anyone can consider any word to be correct. But you will not > see lense used by reputable writers. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lens SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com >>>> So how do you pronounce "lense"? Is it the same as "lens"? Or maybe >>>> "Lensy"? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lens You are being led down the garden path by this revisionist source. This is probably the most infamous example of "Variant(s)" amongst dictionaries. The M-W even condones the pronunciation 'jül-rE for jewelry, although the audio version on the site is correct. IMHO what matters is usage by knowlegeable authors and reputable publishers. I ran a scan on my folder of photography books in PDF format and found the following: Of 24 books (see list below), there were 2,764 instances of lens, and only 1 of lense. That's 0.04%. I would attribute the mutant to a typo. I also checked rec.photo.* and found 1,010,000 occurrences of lens, and 30,500 of lense. So in this more free-wheeling environment it occurs 3% of the time. Some of those are just typos. I also found 51 lesn, 36 lnes, 8 elns, 68 lenss, and 16 llens. Oh, and 4 lensse and 1 llense. Finally I searched eBay to see what the really unwashed write. For lens it was 46,936 and for lense 45,824! Thus eBayers have no clue about how to write lens... or maybe it's more that the sellers think that their buyers are spelling nitwits. In this bottom-of-the-barrel literary forum, we have 49% lense. So you be the judge. Oh yeah, I have the 70-300 and find it liberating and the images are great. Ken List of books follows. A Short Course in Digital Photography On-line book Adobe Photoshop CS Tips and Tricks Andrews, Advanced Photoshop Elements 4.0 for Digital Photographers Focal Press Dec 2005 A-Z of digital photography Bamberg - Digital Art Photography for Dummies Dec 2005 Basic Flash Photography - How To Beginner's Guide to B&W Photography (Photography Monthly, 2001) Busch - Digital Photography All-in-one Desk Reference for Dummies, John Wiley Canon EOS 300D - A Short Course in Canon EOS Digital Rebel Photography CRC Press Digital Color Imaging Handbook Exploring Digital Photography - Element K Journals Fundamentals of Photography and Cinematography Johnson - How To Do Everything with Your Digital Camera 2nd 2002 McGraw Hill Osborne King - Shoot Like A Pro! - Digital Photography Techniques Laaker, Adobe Photoshop CS in 10 Simple Steps Moss, Camera Raw with Photoshop For Dummies, Feb 2006 Obermeier - Photoshop Album For Dummies (2003) Obermeier, Photoshop CS All in One Desk Reference for Dummies Paint Shop Pro 9 - Photographers Guide Photography (Advanced) USN 1995 Photography (Basic) - USN 1993 Popular Photography (magazine) and Imaging - 2005-12 White - Click! The No Nonsense Guide to Digital Cameras 2003.McGraw Hill Osborne Wiley - Photoshop Album For Dummies (2003) > So you be the judge. > > Oh yeah, I have the 70-300 and find it liberating and the images are > great. Very impressive research. Any idea where the worst abuse of it's for its takes place? Signaturejohn mcwilliams > > So you be the judge. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Very impressive research. Any idea where the worst abuse of it's for its > takes place? Because then we could nuke there websight. Its enough to make me loose my temper. People seem to have no respect for this language of our's. >>> So you be the judge. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > my temper. People seem to have no respect for this language of > our's. Your a funny guy, cj. Theirs a place for you're kind. SignatureFrank ess "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message >> Because then we could nuke there websight. Its enough to make me loose >> my temper. People seem to have no respect for this language of our's. > > Your a funny guy, cj. Theirs a place for you're kind. america >> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lens > > You are being led down the garden path by this revisionist source. > This is probably the most infamous example of "Variant(s)" amongst > dictionaries. Indeed, if you look instead in a real dictionary, you'll discover: lense, v. Obs. a. trans. To make lean; to macerate. b. intr. To become lean. And no recognition at all of it being related to "lens". (OED) SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com From time to time we are subjected to a pronunciation and/or spelling rant by someone desiring to impose their unfounded beliefs on the rest of us.The posts I am responding to are further examples of this. >>>>> So how do you pronounce "lense"? Is it the same as "lens"? Or maybe >>>>> "Lensy"? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> You or anyone can consider any word to be correct. But you will not >>> see lense used by reputable writers. Here, this particular would-be imposer uses a specious argument to make his views seem right by inserting the word 'reputable' to modify the word 'writers'. Thus, anyone who disagrees with him is automatically 'disreputable' and therefore wrong. This is one of the oldest and weakest ways to attempt to support an argument. >>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lens > >You are being led down the garden path by this revisionist source. >This is probably the most infamous example of "Variant(s)" amongst >dictionaries. The M-W even condones the pronunciation 'jül-rE for >jewelry, although the audio version on the site is correct. Here's another example of the same specious argument used above. Merriam-Webster, one of the most respected dictionaries of the English language, is called 'revisionist'. Should you believe the authors of that dictionary, your are being 'led down the garden path', a phrase intended to demean both you and the dictionary. He offers no arguments in support of his position, just more name calling. In the last sentence of the quoted paragraph above he demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the function of dictionaries. They, unlike the author, do not 'condone' anything. Dictionaries report on usage and unlike the author have no interest in imposing their views on the world. >IMHO what matters is usage by knowlegeable authors and reputable >publishers. I ran a scan on my folder of photography books in PDF >format and found the following: In this paragraph the writer attempts to define 'what matters' without any regard for what linguists believe matters, and even uses the net acronym 'IMHO' to give himself cover. But it is obvious that his opinion is anything but humble. Clearly, his is the opinion, the only opinion, that matters at all. He makes this clear by applying qualifying adjectives to 'authors' and 'publishers'. Any writer who dares to spell the word 'lense' is 'unknowledgeable' and anyone who publishes what that writer has written is 'disreputable'. But of course his opinion (humble or otherwise) is of no more importance than that of any other person unaware of how dictionaries and languages function. What does really matter according to linguists is usage by speakers and writers of that particular language. Please note that I didn't qualify 'speakers and writers'. Unlike Ken Johnston I do understand the function of dictionaries. For KJ, I'll supply a clue by rephrasing what I wrote above: Dictionaries try to report accurately on how people use the language, it is neither their goal nor function to impose 'correct' spellings or pronunciations. >Of 24 books (see list below), there were 2,764 instances of lens, and >only 1 of lense. That's 0.04%. I would attribute the mutant to a typo. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >that their buyers are spelling nitwits. In this bottom-of-the-barrel >literary forum, we have 49% lense. This is another pathetic attempt to support his own valueless views by name-calling. People who sell on ebay are called 'really unwashed' to discredit them, and we are expected to believe that those users of the English language 'have no clue' how to spell 'lens' because half of them spell the word 'lense'. They are wrong because Ken Johnston says they are. He even attacks the 'really unwashed' sellers for thinking that their buyers are 'spelling nitwits', when in reality it is not the sellers but Ken Johnston who thinks this. >So you be the judge. Ken Johnston doesn't really want you to be the judge, unless you agree with him. He and he alone decides what is 'correct' and if you disagree you are 'really unwashed', 'unknowlegeable' (sic), a 'nitwit', disreputable, foolish and just plain wrong. >Oh yeah, I have the 70-300 and find it liberating and the images are >great. > >Ken I sincerely hope you are very much better at photography than you are at linguistics and arguments, Ken. I also sincerely hope you are more honest than you seem to be when you add a trivial sentence to an entirely off-topic post in a feeble effort to make it seem on-topic. >List of books follows. >A Short Course in Digital Photography On-line book [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Hill Osborne >Wiley - Photoshop Album For Dummies (2003) Anyone can select only those publications that support his views. In this case, limiting the selection to non-European publications will make that easier, since the variant spelling 'lense' is used more by others than by Americans. FWIW, Google says there are almost two and a half million English-language pages on the Web that contain the word 'lense'. Of course in some of these the writer is objecting to that spelling, on some sites the word is an acronym, and on some the word is a person's name. But it would seem that their are very many instances in which the word is spelled 'lense' to denote the item that I spell 'lens'. There have been many attempts to impose certain spellings and pronunciations. Some even had the support of various governments - the French and Russian language academys are good examples. They failed completely, for the simple reason that languages belong to their users and evolve through usage. No one, not even the dictatorial government of Russia under the Bolsheviks, has been able to restrict usage to the 'correct' spellings and pronunciations. Authors and publishers of dictionaries are well aware of this, as are all other linguists. To anyone offended by my posting off-topic I offer sincere apology. I would not (and never have) initiate an off-topic discussion, and I routinely kill-filter anyone who does. My only defense for this off-topic post is that I didn't start the discussion and responded only to defend the right of people to spell and pronounce words as they choose. The purpose of language is to communicate. People who spell the word 'lense' are creating no confusion (even Ken Johnston knew what they meant) and are not thereby failing to communicate their thoughts, nor do any of the pejoratives employed by the would-be dictators apply to them. I do pledge to never initiate off-topic discussions, but I cannot pledge to never come to the defense of people attacked without just cause. > From time to time we are subjected to a pronunciation and/or > spelling > rant by someone desiring to impose their unfounded beliefs on the > rest of us.The posts I am responding to are further examples of > this. <snip umbrage> > To anyone offended by my posting off-topic I offer sincere apology. > I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > off-topic discussions, but I cannot pledge to never come to the > defense of people attacked without just cause. You're my hero. > >I've recently bought a Canon EOS-350D camera body and a Sigma 17-70mm > >f/2.8-4.5, so an additional zoom would probably be a nice addition to [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > cover most of what I need and have excellent image quality and high > performance that's difficult to beat at twice the price. I have the same lenses, hard to beat as a travelling combo. With the addition of a 1.4X teleconverter most any condition can be covered. Jean Thanks for the comments on those lenses. But I must admit that I'm still pretty confused because of such a high range of different experiences with the 70-300 IS USM. I've read several reviews of the 70-200 f/4L, and the conclusion is simple: it's a great lens, period. However, there are a couple of downsides which is the reason I'm considering the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM: - Image stabiliser (IS) on the 70-300. From what I've read, this not only comes in handy for situations where you're on the move, but also when it's impractical to carry a tripod around or situations where there's not enough light. It makes the lens more versatile. -the 70-300 has 100mm more zoom. Now, I don't really know how much zoom is "enough", but I assume the more the better. I know the 70-200 can be fitted with a converter ring, but that adds to the total cost. On the other hand I could go for just the lens now and extend its capabilities later so it won't be such an outlay right now. -The cost. The 70-300 will be a major outlay for me in any case, being a non-professional and all, but the 70-200 costs even a bit more. To conclude, the 70-300mm has IS allowing me to take pictures in darker places or without a tripod to eliminate the shaking, longer zoom range, costs less and is probably a more versatile travel/allround lens. It's also lighter than the 70-200 and more "anonymous" being black. On the other hand, the 70-200 apparently gives better results and in the long run is a better investment. So the final question comes down to image quality as the 70-300 surely has an advantage when it comes to everything else. As so many comments on this lens have been positive I can't help but think it's a *good* lens, while the 70-200 is an *excellent* lens. When people recommend getting "L" lenses, is that because everything else is totally useless crap, or is it because it's just better? Perhaps I don't need top of the line equipment now although I'm quality conscious of course. I did spent a lot of time figuring out which first lens to get for my EOS-350D, and ended up with a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 instead of say the Canon 17-40 f/4L. Simply because I found the range a lot more versatile and I'd save some money in the process. So far I'm very happy with my choice. I'm still at the beginner stage, trying to slowly learn how to use my system manually, but hope to get better soon :-) Ramblings aside, now that everybody's confimed that the 70-200 f/4L is a great lens, is the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM a *bad* lens which I should avoid? >Thanks for the comments on those lenses. >But I must admit that I'm still pretty confused because of such a high [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >a great lens, is the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM a *bad* lens which I should >avoid? IMHO the L lenses perform better in ideal situations... with the camera on a tripod, and a subject that is not moving very much. In less than ideal circumstances, with marginal light and/or moving subject and no tripod, you will get focusing errors and subject blur that wipes out all advantage that the L glass gives. That's where lenses like the 70-300 IS come in. Try shooting monkeys in treetops in Central America. Those critters are on the move all the time, and you are following them through dense brush. Tripod use is out of the question. Most of my shooting situations are like that... in busy streets, on long treks, from a boat, in parks where tripod use is not allowed, etc. Ths IS lenses outperform the L glass in situations like this! KS >>Ramblings aside, now that everybody's confimed that the 70-200 f/4L is >>a great lens, is the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM a *bad* lens which I should [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > subject and no tripod, you will get focusing errors and subject blur > that wipes out all advantage that the L glass gives. Camera shake and focusing errors are independent of the lens in use. The L lenses give better pictures to begin with, and so will give better pictures after errors have been added as well. > That's where lenses like the 70-300 IS come in. Try shooting monkeys > in treetops in Central America. Those critters are on the move all the > time, and you are following them through dense brush. Tripod use is > out of the question. And IS is of no use there either. > Most of my shooting situations are like that... in busy streets, on > long treks, from a boat, in parks where tripod use is not allowed, > etc. > > Ths IS lenses outperform the L glass in situations like this! You seem to be forgetting about the L IS lenses. Nothing beats those. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com >>>Ramblings aside, now that everybody's confimed that the 70-200 f/4L is >>>a great lens, is the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM a *bad* lens which I should [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >The L lenses give better pictures to begin with, and so will give >better pictures after errors have been added as well. That's incorrect. L lenses do not a priori give better pictures. It depends on the shooting circumstances. KS >>>>Ramblings aside, now that everybody's confimed that the 70-200 f/4L is >>>>a great lens, is the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM a *bad* lens which I should [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > That's incorrect. L lenses do not a priori give better pictures. It > depends on the shooting circumstances. All else aside, L lenses have less distortion and chromatic aberrations than most other lenses. That difference will *always* be there under any conditions other than total darkness. SignatureMåns Rullgård mru@inprovide.com >When people recommend getting "L" lenses, is that because everything >else is totally useless crap, or is it because it's just better? Every lense has its use. For example, the inexpensive 18-55 kit lense for the Rebel XT/350D may not have great sharpness or contrast, but used for snapshots it's good enough for many people who buy the XT. The 17-40 L lense costs a lot more, but it has great optics. The 16-35 L costs even more but has a wider aperture and performs even better. You generally get what you pay for. That's why pros will use the best - it's part of their job and they need the best to make a living, so they'll buy the $1800 lense. I'm not a pro so I don't need the best but I want the next best thing, so I'll buy the $800 lense. And amateurs who want family snapshots of their kids running on the beach could be happy with a $100 lense. >Ramblings aside, now that everybody's confimed that the 70-200 f/4L is >a great lens, is the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM a *bad* lens which I should >avoid? It's not a bad lense, it's just that you have to know its limitations and learn how to handle the lense in situations that require you to work within those limits. The 70-300 IS has advantages with zoom range and image stabilization. If you feel those are a good trade for its optical performance, then it's a good choice and will serve you well. >-the 70-300 has 100mm more zoom. >Now, I don't really know how much zoom is "enough", but I assume the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >On the other hand, the 70-200 apparently gives better results and in >the long run is a better investment. I have both an L ( 24 - 105 ) and the 70-300 for my 5D Both lenses work very well. Yes the L lens is built better. I have gotten excellent results from both lenses. I would not fret. Buy what you can afford and forget about analyzing the problem to death <g>. Then go out and shoot.... > I have gotten excellent results from both lenses. > > I would not fret. Buy what you can afford and forget about analyzing > the problem to death <g>. Point taken, and a very good point you have! ;-) Maybe I'm just putting too much into all of this because of my ignorance. I would think that a real professional would be able to take great shots with just about any equipment, pushing what is available at the moment to the very limit instead of depending on "pro" gear all the time. On the other hand, buying an expensive "L" lens probably won't turn an beginner/amateur like myself into a pro in an instant. > Then go out and shoot.... Already started, and having lots of fun! Just received the Magic lantern guide for my EOS Rebel XT/EOS-350D from Amazon today, so I'm going to learn some more while I shoot. Seeing that I'm very happy with my Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 lens, would I likely be happy with the 70-300 mm IS USM as well? Sidetracking a bit: buying a digital SLR is the best thing I've ever done when it comes to photography! I still can't over the fact that I can see the results right away!! If I keep this up I'll have to buy another memory card as I quickly fill it up ;-) Just to help me conclude: in which category would you put the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM? I know the Canon 70-200 f/4L goes is the "professional" and "superior quality" category. No doubt about that. But would the 70-300mm be categorized as "a piece of crap", "a little better than a piece of crap", "a versatile, well built and good lens", "a serious lens for amateurs/budget semi-pros" or even "a very good lens, but not quite professional grade"? I'd put my Canon EOS-300 kit-lens (28-90mm) in the first category, which is why I didn't settle for a kit lens this time around. > Just to help me conclude: in which category would you put the Canon > 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'd put my Canon EOS-300 kit-lens (28-90mm) in the first category, > which is why I didn't settle for a kit lens this time around. Purely from observation image stabilised lenses are thought of as better optically too albeit only marginally better. As for being a bit soft at 300mm that is probably correct. However at 200mm it is more than acceptable. You therefore have an extra 100mm and image stabilisation over the 70-200F4L. So it is therefore range and low light ability against image quality. The 100-300 IS is supposed to be optically superior to the 70-300. > > Just to help me conclude: in which category would you put the Canon > > 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > ability against image quality. The 100-300 IS is supposed to be optically > superior to the 70-300. For shots where focussing speed is not an issue, the 70-300 will do very well but for any fast pace picture taking, you will regret your purchase. Even with the weight and lenght disadvantages as well as the "color" disadvantage, I still prefer the 70-200 f4 L over my old 75-300. I got shots of birds in flight which would have been impossible with the 75-300 because it's focussing motor was too slow. Jean >> > Just to help me conclude: in which category would you put the Canon >> > 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Jean The 70-300 lens is superior to the older 75-300! That's why you can buy new 75-300 for $150! Jack Mac > >> > Just to help me conclude: in which category would you put the Canon > >> > 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Jack Mac My 75-300 was the IS variant which is not too different from the newer 70-300 IS. Many times I would swear at it for it's slow focussing. I did get great shots with it as long as I made sure not to lose the subject and keep it in focus (AI servo helps a lot) Jean >> >> > Just to help me conclude: in which category would you put the Canon >> >> > 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM? [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >Jean I didn't know the 75-300 was made without IS! Suggest you go to http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm and you can read of the improvements of the 70-300 over the 75-300. Jack Mac > >> >> > Just to help me conclude: in which category would you put the Canon > >> >> > 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM? [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > and you can read of the improvements of the 70-300 over the > 75-300. Looks good on these tests, the biggest change is the UD glass lens element. Although they mention faster focussing due to a micro USM motor, the old one had the same type of motor and it was not very fast. I just looked and the old 75-300 IS still goes for over $400 on e-Bay... (not a reference but a guideline since none of the big mail order stores have new ones for sale). Jean > For shots where focussing speed is not an issue, the 70-300 will do very > well but for any fast pace picture taking, you will regret your purchase. I'll use it mostly for landscape and scenery photography, though I'm sure some "action" scenes will show up as well ;-) Having a zoom like this will allow me to take people shots from far away, which is good as I'm too much of a shy person to point a camera in some stranger's face. I guess it depends on what you mean by "fast". As a newbie I haven't been spoilt by the possibilities of what a digital SLR can do yet ;-) Perhaps "slow" is "fast enough" for me, while for a professional it's "wayyyy too slow". > Even with the weight and lenght disadvantages as well as the "color" > disadvantage, I still prefer the 70-200 f4 L over my old 75-300. I got > shots of birds in flight which would have been impossible with the 75-300 > because it's focussing motor was too slow. Isn't the 70-300 an improvement over the 75-300? Is it just the optics that have been improved, and the speed is the same? What concerns me the most is that the 70-300 has IS, which I've been told allows me to shoot in situations where I would need a tripod, or failing that can't take photos at all (well, perhaps by setting the ISO). The 70-200 L is also a little heavier and bulkier than the 70-300 IS, isn't it? Pricewise, it looks like a used 70-200 f/4L is about the same as a brand new 70-300 IS USM. I haven't seen any used 70-300 IS USM lenses yet. Apparently it's a pretty new lens. So all things considered, price isn't an issue for choosing one or the other. > > For shots where focussing speed is not an issue, the 70-300 will do very > > well but for any fast pace picture taking, you will regret your purchase. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Perhaps "slow" is "fast enough" for me, while for a professional it's > "wayyyy too slow". I'm not a pro, but a spoiled brat ;-) having a faster focus is a shot saver even more than the IS IMOHO. While the 70-300 will do well 80-90% of the time, it may not perform as intended for that special moment. I feel I made a wrong decision getting the 75-300 IS and selling it at a loss rather than buying a better lens from the start. Sure a 200mm range is less than a 300mm one but when looking at my pictures and seeing the difference between the two lenses quality wise and using both of them, the 70-200 is a better choice (for me). > > Even with the weight and lenght disadvantages as well as the "color" > > disadvantage, I still prefer the 70-200 f4 L over my old 75-300. I got [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Isn't the 70-300 an improvement over the 75-300? Is it just the optics > that have been improved, and the speed is the same? In the tests pointed out by Jack Mac, the optics seem a lot better with a UD glass element but they do not mention any numbers for focussing speed. Probably the best thing to do would be to go to a store and try both and see how they each perform. > What concerns me the most is that the 70-300 has IS, which I've been > told allows me to shoot in situations where I would need a tripod, or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > yet. Apparently it's a pretty new lens. So all things considered, price > isn't an issue for choosing one or the other. I guess the 70-300 is too new to be on the used market. Jean >> Isn't the 70-300 an improvement over the 75-300? Is it just the optics >> that have been improved, and the speed is the same? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > see > how they each perform. Hmmmm... I am no professional photographer; don't even play one on TV, but I do have the EF 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM lens. I am constantly reaching for the camera, flipping it on, cursing myself for forgetting to release the lens lock, and trying to snap a shot of a small airplane on the approach to the local air strip or a low-flying hawk or heron. With the S1 IS, I used to curse the 2-second start-up time before a shot was possible. The Rebel XT's virtual instant-on has removed that delay. Now (did I mention that I am no professional?) this new 300mm zoom lens may not quite equal the 10X (380mm?) optics of the S1, but its autofocus seems plenty quick to me. Granted, I have no other long lens to which I can compare... The wildcard with this lens is the change in focal distance. When I focus on a close object (something like 5' minimum) and then refocus on infinity, the lens takes about 3/4 second to travel that distance and lock on. Obviously, the shorter the distance, the faster it focuses. (For instance, after focusing at an object 100 feet away, the refocus to an object 150 feet away is almost instantaneous.) I've never had any complaints about its autofocus speed, and don't remember having missed any shots because of it. More often than not, I've missed shots because I've a) forgotten to remove the lens cap, b) forgotten that I was on manual and didn't change the shutter speed, c) forgotten that I've left the battery inside charging, or d) forgotten that I'd left the CF card in my computer. dwight >>> Isn't the 70-300 an improvement over the 75-300? Is it just the optics >>> that have been improved, and the speed is the same? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >dwight Ditto. I find the lens to be totally adequate. > >> Isn't the 70-300 an improvement over the 75-300? Is it just the optics > >> that have been improved, and the speed is the same? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > is almost instantaneous.) I've never had any complaints about its autofocus > speed, and don't remember having missed any shots because of it. As long as the lens has a lock on something, the focusing speed will not be bad, BUT if it loses focus and goes from near to far to near then those many seconds will seem like an eternity. Let's say you are focusing on a bird in flight and then the movement causes the focus point to be in the sky, the lens will hunt until it finds something to lock on to, since it does not have FTM (full time manual control), the only way to regain focus is to point the lens at something it can lock on and then move it back to the primary subject (the bird) or put it in manual focus mode turn the focusing ring and switch it back to AF. 3/4 seconds vs almost instant focus... Superior optics... constant aperture... FTM... the 70-200 f4 L is a clear choice for me. Mind you, the lure of longer focal lenght and IS are very tempting BUT if all my shots were only printed on 4X6 paper, then I would not be so adamant about the difference in quality between the two lenses. Seeing a picture on a computer screen is like printing all the pictures poster size, ALL defects show up so readily which is why I have moved on to better lenses. When I started getting lenses, I could not imagine spending that much on what then appeared to me insignificant differences, only when I found the lens I had bought had limitations did I bite the bullet and get the better product. In addition to the 70-200 f4 L, I also have ½ of a 70-200 f2,8 L (my daughter owns the other ½). While the f2,8 variant is superior in low light, in all other respects, the f4 is just as good so if I had to pick one or the other, the f4 it would be, maybe I do have some sense after all ;-) (I'm trying to sell her my ½ now that she moved out) Jean > More often than not, I've missed shots because I've a) forgotten to remove > the lens cap, b) forgotten that I was on manual and didn't change the > shutter speed, c) forgotten that I've left the battery inside charging, or > d) forgotten that I'd left the CF card in my computer. > > dwight |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.