Canon 70-300

Hey all,

I was recently looking into the 70-200 and was talking out of it by the sales rep as he said it didn't have enough zoom if I wanted it. The last lens was the 70-200 L f4. Now, the one he's recommended instead is http://www.georges.com.au/index.php/...4-5-6-iii.html

It's 1/6th of the price so I'm wondering what's up? I know it's not USM, but I've been told that's the only difference and the quality is similar to an L series lens in optical quality (but not build quality). Can someone please confirm or deny? I know it's a cheap lens etc but it's very much within my budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squidy

... I've been told that's the only difference and the quality is similar to an L series lens in optical quality (but not build quality).

---

It's a true statement, much like it's also true that the moon is made of green cheese. Whoever told you that, I'd recommend doubting them if they said the sky is up or water is wet.

Get the 70-200mm f/4L, budget permitting. Cropping that to the 300mm framing will give much better results. If you actually need more native reach, consider the 70-300L (not the non-L, which is very soft >200mm).

I have the USM version of this lens. For the price, it is great. But it shouldn't be compared to "L" glass. It is much more comparable to rebel "kit" lenses. Maybe even the older Rebel Kit lenses. I upgraded to the 100-400 L soon after buying my 7D. I have played with the two at 300 mm and the 75-300 mm is considerably softer and spends a significant amount of time focus hunting. Build quality isn't comparable. Bryan has a review up for the USM version and it is pretty fair. You can take pictures, good pictures, with the 75-300 (USM), but expect some softness and don't expect to be able to do much cropping.

Bryan's review:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

BTW. I don't see the non-USM version on Canon USA's website. Which makes me think it isn't even current and may not be as good as the USM version.

Honestly, if you need the reach, think about spending some more money on the 75-300 IS version, which is supposed to be sharper or the 70-200 f/4 non-IS.

Luckily the 70-200 f/4L is on sale (See Bryan's news post here).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

It's a true statement, much like it's also true that the moon is made of green cheese. Whoever told you that, I'd recommend doubting them if they said the sky is up or water is wet.

Get the 70-200mm f/4L, budget permitting. Cropping that to the 300mm framing will give much better results. If you actually need more native reach, consider the 70-300L (not the non-L, which is very soft >200mm).

---

Squidy - I agree w/ Dr. Brain, never go back to who told you the 75-300 was in anyway an option - never - they may engaging and colorful, but either are completely misinformed or worse. The 70-300 much, much better, and the for the $$ the f4 70-200 is perhaps the best lens you can buy.

It is only 1 stop from the 2.8, weights a lot less, and provides nearly identical image quality to the 2.8 at f4 - particularly on crop bodies. at f5.6 there is only a difference for those that over enlarge and then get their noses against the glass of the picture frame.

Think of it this way, the "film" (sensor) on your camera is identical to the 7d, as such it can benefit from all the resolution and contrast any lens can provide. The sensor, can't record what doesn't get it, and if what gets to it is fuzzy so will be the recording. The pros use the best glass they can get... they could save the price differential on a several lenses - not just one at a time but several times, no one has unlimited budgets - if the quality didn't make a difference..... it simply does.

I rented the 70-300non-L once and did not find it much better than my EF-S 55-250 (other than build quality). The 75-300 is even worse that the 70-300non-L I believe. I would recommend them only if you are buying used or in a really good deal, as an intermediate better-than-nothing solution until you have saved money for the 70-200, or 70-300 or 100-400L if you want more reach.

btw depending on what you shoot, USM can affect IQ. For fast moving subjects, you will have more out-of-focus shots with the non-USM lenses

I've got a 75-300 USM III in my closet that I'll let go for $100 to whoever wants it!

Dave

Squidy, how would the salesman even know if you needed a longer zoom or not. I am always a bit skeptical when talking to salesman. Maybe it is because I have to deal with salesman at work all the time. You have to be able to make your own judgment call because most will mislead. (whether on purpose or because of their own ignorance). As far as the 75-300mm it is better than having no lens at all. It is a starting point and the range will get better from there.

You had a post not long ago asking about the 70-200mm for portraits. Maybe a better question to ask the forum is what would be the best lens for your intended purpose and the price range you can afford. There might be a cheap prime that would work for you, or a combination you haven't thought about.

Hey all, thanks heaps (as always) for your replies.

I started off with the 18-55 and 55-250 kit lenses and got rid of them and got a 24-105L (very impressive lens) but I've found despite the upgrade I've noticed I'd like to zoom more, but not often enough as to justify a $1900 lens. I've found the 100mm end to be good for portraits etc but I've (obviously) still got to be a bit of a distance from the subject. The 70-200 was top of my list but I'd also like more zoom, but I don't want to "double up" if that makes sense? Meaning I dont want to get 24-105, then 70-200, then 70 -300 etc. Due to being on a bit of a budget I've wanted to keep 2 lenses, one as a walk around and one for my zoom stuff (I've also got a 60mm for macro stuff).

So, the 70-300 non usm is definitely within budget but I dont want to sacrifice image quality... but at the same time I'm trying to justify spending an extra $1k on what could just be a small jump in image quality... and then at the same time it's not a lens I'll use often. (I live in Sydney, everything is "in your face" and zoom is only necessary going out to parks etc

Dave: If I didn't want to try it out before Christmas I'd literally take you up on that offer

ND: That's why I didn't understand... Here is a sales rep talking himself out of a large sale. Getting that money was pushing it, but when he turned around and said to buy a $200 lens instead I was like "huh??" I'm not sure if he was trying to get me to trust him more or what... but it was weird.

Well, I'd just like the zoom to be there if I need it to be honest. At first I wanted it for portraits etc but it seems my 24-105L is actually doing well for it so I'm just looking for a lens for holidays for distant objects (ships, lighthouses, wildlife) etc. The extender is something I didn't actually think of, and you do make a very good point in regards to extending the reach etc, might have to give that one a look in :)

if it is only very occasional use, consider renting.
Or, buy one of the low-cost lenses used or refurbished (for crop I'd recommend the EF-S 55-250), and buy a lens more suited to what you shoot most (fast prime, UWA, ...). That way you don't loose money if you decide to upgrade later to a better tele. It also gives you more time to figure out what you really want next

This is the best picture I ever took with the 75-300 USM III, wide open at 300mm @ f/5.6 of all things:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7178/6...28921871_c.jpg
20080830_0998 by dthrog00, on Flickr

Overall, it can be an aggravating lens some of the time. Much like the 55-250 the focus motor feels like it takes forever to get there. Some pictures you take and they end up being dull for no apparent reason. There's one instance in particular I'm thinking about where I was trying to photograph a light house from across the park and they all came out soft.

This was the first lens I bought and all I had was the 18-55 original, the 75-300, and an XT that I bought from Sears as a $340 close out in 2008. Given it was all I had and I didn't go to these forums to see awesome images like what Joel does with birds, it was quite honestly a revelation. I could go to a baseball or football game or something and actually get close ups of the players. Those images probably don't hold up really well to close inspection now, but I liked them then and had a lot of fun taking them.

That said if you have the money I'd suggest getting the 70-200 f/4 L. I haven't used it, but given it is L quality with a USM motor I think it'd be a big jump in quality over the 55-250, 70-300 IS non-L, and all of the 75-300s

Dave

I looked through some of my archives and here are a couple that are typical:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8339/8...ea21dbf8_c.jpg
20090508_1984 by dthrog00, on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8502/8...7f1894a7_c.jpg
20090508_1969 by dthrog00, on Flickr

They're ok pictures, but really good memories of a fun trip to Bloomington / Minneapolis! Mauer vs Ichiro! This was a really tough application for that lens because the pics are both at 1/160 shutter and wide open. That's tough sledding for a non-stabilized $200 lens.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squidy

I was recently looking into the 70-200 and was talking out of it by the sales rep as he said it didn't have enough zoom if I wanted it. The last lens was the 70-200 L f4. Now, the one he's recommended instead is http://www.georges.com.au/index.php/...4-5-6-iii.html

---

A few years ago I test drove a 2009 Chrysler Sebring for a car review I was writing for The Truth About Cars. The salesman who accompanied me kept comparing this crap Chrysler with the excellent Acura TSX. The lie was so outlandish that all I could do was laugh inside. Anyway...

I own the discontinued Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM, which is built a little better than Canon's various 75-300mm zooms but is optically pretty similar. It is a fine lens for well lighted subjects and if you keep it zoomed between 100mm and about 250mm. After about 250mm, the sharpness drops off quite dramatically. Within those constraints it has been a pretty good lens and I've taken many outstanding images with it, although I don't use it much anymore because I now have better glass.