 |
 | 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 / September 2006Just got new 70-300 Canon IS lens!
And it works like a champ! That IS is even better as expected. When i got it it was almost dark, so i quickly shot these two shots, both at 1/8 sec, one with, one without IS: http://www.protoncek.com/misc/0009.JPG http://www.protoncek.com/misc/0010.JPG stuff really works perfectly! I mean, it's perfect for hand-shooting with such tele-zoom, as i will mostly do. > And it works like a champ! That IS is even better as expected. When i got it > it was almost dark, so i quickly shot these two shots, both at 1/8 sec, one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > stuff really works perfectly! I mean, it's perfect for hand-shooting with > such tele-zoom, as i will mostly do. Congrats. A new lens is a great source of fun and new shooting possibilities. Cheers, Wayne  SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ >> And it works like a champ! That IS is even better as expected. When i got >> it it was almost dark, so i quickly shot these two shots, both at 1/8 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Wayne thanks! > And it works like a champ! That IS is even better as expected. When i got it > it was almost dark, so i quickly shot these two shots, both at 1/8 sec, one > with, one without IS: > > http://www.protoncek.com/misc/0009.JPG > http://www.protoncek.com/misc/0010.JPG Looks to me like you exagerated the non-IS movement. : > And it works like a champ! That IS is even better as expected. When i got it : > it was almost dark, so i quickly shot these two shots, both at 1/8 sec, one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : Looks to me like you exagerated the non-IS movement. ;-) >> And it works like a champ! That IS is even better as expected. When i >> got it it was almost dark, so i quickly shot these two shots, both at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Looks to me like you exagerated the non-IS movement. I was goig to ask if he had Parkinson's SignatureSlack >>> And it works like a champ! That IS is even better as expected. When i >>> got it it was almost dark, so i quickly shot these two shots, both at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I was goig to ask if he had Parkinson's it was a few first minutes with new lens (the excitement made it's job), so, i guess, yep, i did have parkinson's...my hands were shaking like i've had one...but, then again, IS showed what it can do to a man with such shaking hands... Note that shots were made with 1/8 sec, so it's pretty slow... I'll do a couple of test shots (more realistic ones, i hope) later on and put them to my web site...should be on tomorrow, i hope. But, as i see, it is the right thing for hand-held shooting... >>>> And it works like a champ! That IS is even better as expected. When i >>>> got it it was almost dark, so i quickly shot these two shots, both at [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > it > is the right thing for hand-held shooting... Well, I'm not doubting a good performance increase from an IS lens, I have the 17-85, just not /that/ much. Anyway, enjoy the 70-300, I've heard good comments about it. SignatureSlack >>>>> And it works like a champ! That IS is even better as expected. When i >>>>> got it it was almost dark, so i quickly shot these two shots, both at [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Anyway, enjoy the 70-300, I've heard good comments about it. i, too have 17-85 IS lens. And, as you said, difference isn't that big, but it's because it doesn't have that big zoom. With 70-300 lens using at 70 or so IS isn't that obvious. But when increasing zoom, it comes into action. And since i won't have tripod, i said that it's useless to have 70-200 f4 L at appr. similar price and with shaky (=useless) shots and went to this one instead. Comments and reviews are only good, when taking into account the price of the lens. In short, a good value for money. On 23 Sep 2006 19:26:11 +0200, "Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)" <protoHAHAHncek@bonbon.net> wrote: <CUT> >i, too have 17-85 IS lens. And, as you said, difference isn't that big, but >it's because it doesn't have that big zoom. With 70-300 lens using at 70 or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >instead. Comments and reviews are only good, when taking into account the >price of the lens. In short, a good value for money. Congratulations, Canon's EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is a very good lens for the money. As you probably already know *IS/VR* lenses can be addictive. If you look back to (9/12/2006?), you will see a long thread about this lens. In that thread it explains how many of the early production lenses had a problem that mostly presented it 'self while in portrait orientation, with or without *IS* on. Much to Canon's credit, they acknowledged the problem & soon realized that they needed the lens back to repair it. So they offered the repair free to the effected lenses which they identified via serial #. Mine was 1 of them so I contacted Canon & was soon E-Mailed a pre-paid UPS label, Canon's NJ USA Service Center promptly repaired & sent it back via Fed-EX. All in less than a week, *including transit time*, quite impressive Customer Service. Speed of repair was in part expedited by the fact that most of the interior of the lens was apparently replaced as a unit or assembly, thus not likely an inexpensive repair for Canon but the result was a quality & very fast repair & turn around. That said, I too have both the EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM & the EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM lenses. Just between these 2 lenses there is a large focal length coverage with only a little overlap. An effective 27.2-480mm on a 1.6x crop factored DSLR. This is a lot of coverage for just 2 lenses of relatively modest price & good quality. No they are not Canon "L" glass lenses but IMHO they certainly are good quality lenses for their price. For the record, I don't yet own any Canon "L" glass lenses, so "I" can't compare them 1st hand. Also I am & will remain just an amateur photographer now hopelessly addicted to digital photography in many of it's forms. As nice as *IS/VR* zoom lenses can be, don't overlook fixed focal length lenses. IMHO Canon's EF 50mm f1.8 II @ about $75 USD, is a great low light lens of exceptional optical quality for it's very modest price. This lens is therefore always in my camera bag no matter what other lenses I also pack. Also I have been very impressed with the Canon EF 100mm f2 USM lens. Sorry if I sound like a Canon sale's person, I am not but I am impressed with many of their photographic products. Best of luck with your new lens, it should be a lot of fun. My only criticism of the EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is the fact that the front lens element rotates making it harder to use a C-PL filter with it & the fact that the f-stop varies from f4-5.6 as 1 zooms toward 300mm. This is why I am keeping my eye on Canon's new EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM which does not have these issues. On the other hand that's a lot of money for me to spend on just 1 lens. It certainly would be nice for certain activities so I'll start saving for it just in case! Respectfully, DHB "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > On 23 Sep 2006 19:26:11 +0200, "Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)" > <protoHAHAHncek@bonbon.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > Respectfully, DHB agreed in all terms. I looked this new L lens, too. But, at the end, i decided that it's too much money for now... Maybe i'll only buy that 50f1.8 lens. then that's it for a while. > Congratulations, > Canon's EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is a very > good lens for the money. As you probably already know *IS/VR* lenses > can be addictive. If you look back to (9/12/2006?), you will see a But ... is the lens any good above 210mm? At $560, that seems a tad expensive for me unless it is superb below 210mm. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >> Congratulations, >> Canon's EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is a very [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > expensive > for me unless it is superb below 210mm. remember that IS is more than half of the price---but still, it's quite OK in whole range. > > Canon's EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is a very > > good lens for the money. As you probably already know *IS/VR* lenses > > can be addictive. If you look back to (9/12/2006?), you will see a > > But ... is the lens any good above 210mm? Yes. It is a new design. > At $560, that seems a tad expensive for me It is about the same price as the old 75-300/4-5.6 IS lens it replaces, but with much better optical qulity. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr |
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.