Anyone shoot the 70-300 f/4-5.6 USM?

[Mark Elberson]

If I were you I'd rock out to my 40D and 70-200 f/2.8 rather than put an extra $500 into the 70-300 f/4-5.6 to mount on a 5D I. It's a perfectly fine lens but it's pretty soft at 300mm and as far as "equivalency" goes a tad bit shorter and slower than the aforementioned combo. This is a great example of choosing the right tool for the job. I know you just got your 5D and probably hate putting it down (I shoot a 5D II and rarely use my 50D unless I'm shooting an event with two bodies) but in this case I think your 40D better fits the bill.

[crosbyharbison]

I've used the 70-300 and loved it. I used f/8-11 mostly and the results were very sharp. I borrow it whenever I need light telephoto lens that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. I wouldn't choose this for anything low light.

[canoli]

Hey you guys - thanks so much for your replies - was away for a week - very happy to finally get a chance to read your comments.


For shooting sports from the stands I guess the 1.6x really is the right choice. It's not like there's anything wrong with the 40D images.


40D 70-200 2.8 IS @ 150mm (1/800 @ f/4 ISO 200)


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.05/carolyn_5F00_bckhnd.jpg[/img]


I still may get that 70-300, just because like CH mentioned it is so much lighter and less obtrusive compared to the 70-200 2.8 IS. Also...480mm? That's almost irresistible!


maybe one day I'll have this hanging over my shoulder... [] (although what he's wearing around his neck (you can barely see it) is the real coveted prize...) Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.29.05/20090903_5F00_MG_5F00_2185_5F00_400mm.jpg[/img]