Canon EF 70-300 IS USM

[Steven Gourlay]

I purchased this lens over a year ago and used it for about six months. It was my first zoom lens and i found it to be very useful for all different types of photography.

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens replaced the highly popular and first image stabilized lens - the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS. This lens was popular because of its useful focal length range, small size, light weight, midrange price and Image Stabilization.

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens is designed to be handholdable at a shutter speed up to 3 f-stops slower than a non-stabilized lens at the same focal length. "Gyro sensors detect unwanted vibrations, triggering the corresponding movement of a correcting lens group perpendicular to the optical axis.

Image stabilization is especially helpful to a slow (narrow aperture) lens. Slow is relative of course - the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens apertures are typical for a consumer telephoto zoom lens. The chart below shows the focal length that triggers a maximum aperture decrease to that listed in the column heading above for each lens.

I would recommend this lens to anyone that wants a entry level lens for wildlife photography, the IS is very good for helping in windy or low light conditions. The lens served me well for the period of time i used it.

Thats the lens i have been using for a while now and i find it great for the photography i do. The 100-400 looks good also but i cannot justify the price.

I would agree with what you say Steven i have also been using this lens for sometime, i was going to go for the cheaper option the 70-300 with no IS but a few of y photography friends recommended i pay the little bit extra for the IS and it was the right choice. I wood love to have the 100-400 lens but i just don't understand why they made them white? Surely a lot of wildlife photographers are going to be using the L range and they are all white?

Why Canon why?

I would say that the 70-300 is good if you want to take medium to close images of wildlife, fine for larger wildlife but for small birds it can be a struggle.

I understand what you are saying Rebel am not sure if its Canons whay of seperating the classes of lenses. I have the 100-400 and use camo covers to cover the white of the lens. Canon sell lenses that cover a wide range of photography, watching the tennis recently? See all those white lenses. ;)

You can get away with not getting the IS version and saving a few £ if you are planning on using a tripod.

[Isobel]

This could be your christmas present to me.

[nighthawk55]

Hi Steve,Have you have dealings with the Canon 70-200 mm F4 IS usm,or anybody else ,
regards
john

[Steven Gourlay]

Ive not tried the 70-200 i always wanted to get more focal length so went to the 70-300 then from that to the 100-400. What would you be using the lens for?

[Raymond]

Wellllll.... I use a 100-400 and my master uses a 70-300 because it is lighter for her. Objective testing shows that this example 70-300 is just about as good as the 100-400 when used at 300mm. (it is often described as the "hidden" L) It is a bit "clunky" in operation and because there is no short range switch it can hunt a bit. The lens barrel turns when focussing so it can be a pain when used with a polarising filter. Optically however, a stunning performer and a good price.

Cheers, Ray.