Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Canon 70-300

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    205

    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,836

    Canon 70-300

    Quote Originally Posted by Squidy View Post
    ... 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).

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    5,565
    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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,443
    Luckily the 70-200 f/4L is on sale (See Bryan's news post here).

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,168
    Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist View Post
    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.
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    Posts
    694
    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.
    Arnt

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Clara, CA, USA
    Posts
    694
    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
    Arnt

  8. #8
    Senior Member Dave Throgmartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    1,061
    I've got a 75-300 USM III in my closet that I'll let go for $100 to whoever wants it!

    Dave

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    3,110
    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    205
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •