spoli Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 The Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM Lens has a useful focal length range, small size, light weight, midrange price and Image Stabilization. It is relatively small (76.5 x 142.8mm / 3.0 x 5.6" retracted) and light (630 g / 22.2 oz) for its range and fits nice a Canon 20D body. Build quality is similar with my EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 IS USM -- i.e. decent: mechanically ok, nice finish, no weather sealing. The zoom ring feels comfortable and rotates smoothly but is a bit too sticky in my opinion. The front element does not rotate when zooming; however, the front element does rotate when focusing. A switch locks at 70mm to prevent the lens from extending when not in use. The focus ring is adequate but the front section (that extends) seems to be a bit loose when in MF mode (or at least it feels like that). Unfortunately, there is no distance scale and no real Ring USM. The Canon 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM Lens does not include FTM (Full Time Manual) focusing -- you must switch to MF mode to manually focus the lens. Focus speed is average (I expected faster AF because of the USM) but accurate in good light. In low light, especially at the long end, I noticed some focus-hunting. The EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM Lens uses Canon's latest generation Image Stabilizer (IS) that provides an additional 3 F-stops for handheld operation. This is definitely my favourite feature of this lens. My first indoor tests indicate that the IS is very effective: using a shutter speed of 1/40 I was able to obtain sharp photos even at the longest focal length (300 mm); I've got decent sharpness even at 1/13 @ 300 mm -- amazing ! When pressing the shutter half way down, the IS engages -- the effect is very obvious in the viewfinder -- it helps to compose the image as well. There are two IS modes: mode I (normal -- all directions) and mode II (panning -- direction of camera motion); for the moment, I've been using the first one only. The IS seems to be relatively noisy compared with my EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 IS USM. The optical quality of this lens remains to be tested. But the preliminary photos (handheld only) did not show any obvious problems in terms of sharpness and resolution. Unfortunately, it will take me a while to perform some serious tests -- maybe this weekend. The price of this lens reflects its qualities (and defects): $736 CAD (~ $620 USD). I'm sure that at least $250 is the IS -- it is a worthy feature especially for those who want to carry less: handheld is fine most of the time in good light, but in difficult situations (i.e. in low light at the long end of the focal length) a monopod is more than enough with the IS system on. Personally, I use a Manfrotto monopod 681 + rubber head 235C. I would have paid $100 more to have Ring USM and FTM. Maybe the next generation...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloopjohne Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Dude! There's no image there! Just a big, black frame! :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard thompson www.fotoz Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 What I want to know is, does it blow, the overpriced, underperforming, 70-300 DO away ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 So . . . . . this lens still appears to be a $400 75-300/IS? With an increased price and an improved IS mechanism? Or to put it another way. . .A $150 75-300 with a modern IS unit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericpetersonphoto Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Richard? Do you own a 70-300 DO? I do and I also owned a 70-200 2.8 L. I was so satisfied with the DO lens that I sold the L lens. The DO is every bit as good as the L lens from 70-200 and better from 200-300 ;) . Granted I miss the 2.8 to 5.6 performance but I rarly used it at those F stops. I dont miss the wgt. and size. I have never had the ghosting or flare issue arise and i use if for sunsets. I did have the old 75-300 IS and was unhappy with it. But since I will be using the 1.6 crop for years to come, I have made all my lenses that much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Take your lens cap off and repeat the test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Take your lens cap off and repeat the test once more and reformat your humongous paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 The whole issue with this lens is what optical quality does it provide across the range of focal lengths, particularly wide open. I guess most are waiting for your tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericpetersonphoto Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Ken, LOL. Maybe it was an exterior reveiw. Could have posted a picture of the lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsd230 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I think I will stick with my 70-200 4L. If it were cheaper it would be a nice alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I won't hold my breath expecting any kind of good quality from a slow, 4.3X zoom lens. I just don't see how that lens would be that useful in a small viewfinder 1.6 crop DSLR. But then, when in doubt, at least post a nice picture of the lens, posing alone, a "nice lens gone bad." ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 <p>It would be interesting to see a shoot-out between this lens, the 70-300 DO, and the old 75-300 IS. I suspect there won't be a lot of people who own all three, though :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spoli Posted October 5, 2005 Author Share Posted October 5, 2005 All right... The file I uploaded was a mistake: it contains the crop from the original picture somewhere in the middle of the frame. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to edit the initial post and to replace the file. Maybe another post will look better ;-)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spoli Posted October 5, 2005 Author Share Posted October 5, 2005 Here is the original photo (size reduced) and an excerpt from the EXIF info: DateTimeOriginal - 2005:10:04 21:35:00 ISOSpeedRatings - 1600 ShutterSpeedValue - 1/40 seconds ApertureValue - F 5.60 ExposureBiasValue - -0.33 MeteringMode - Multi-segment Flash - Not fired, compulsory flash mode FocalLength - 300 mm<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 Interesting -- you apparently shot this at ISO 1600 of some newsprint, 1/40th second, f/5.6 at 300mm in auto mode! on a 20D.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard thompson www.fotoz Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 <i> Richard? Do you own a 70-300 DO? I do and I also owned a 70-200 2.8 L. I was so satisfied with the DO lens that I sold the L lens. The DO is every bit as good as the L lens from 70-200 and better from 200-300 ;) . Granted I miss the 2.8 to 5.6 performance but I rarly used it at those F stops. I dont miss the wgt. and size. I have never had the ghosting or flare issue arise and i use if for sunsets. I did have the old 75-300 IS and was unhappy with it. But since I will be using the 1.6 crop for years to come, I have made all my lenses that much better. </i> <br><br> Yes I've tried 2 copies of the DO. I agree that at f8 between 70-200, its as sharp as the 70-200 L. However contrast and saturation isn't the same. Every image needs more PP to bring it in line with the L. <br><br> I trialed it alongside a 70-200/4L and I got better results from the L. I even got better results handholding, even with the IS of the DO. <br><br> It's images just dont have that L pop. <br><Br> I now use a 100-400 L for when weight isn't an issue, and the older 100-300/5.6L for when I want to go light... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spoli Posted October 5, 2005 Author Share Posted October 5, 2005 And Ken, if you consider this important for some, here is a picture of the lens.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericpetersonphoto Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I guess I just got a stellar copy or maybe my L was below par? Just another circular argument. In this case many circles the next smaller than the next. (DO Joke, Sorry) Bye the way, that is a very handsome lens thanks for the photo! The lens you were using to take the photo seems to be very sharp. That is of course unless its anything other than an L lens, then it appears to be a little soft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athinkle Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I'd assume the increased price is caused by the fact that Canon claims the optical quality is higher than that of the previous version. If you read the MTF charts this appears to be true. There's a big enough difference that there should be a discernable improvement in images. I think that they threw a UD element in there or some such thing. Still, too slow for my tastes. I'll keep my 200 2.8L prime thank you very much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spoli Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 One more IS test: tripod vs. handheld. The focal length was set to 135mm (~215mm in 35mm equivalent). In both cases the IS was enabled; however, the system senses the tripod if the camera is rock stable. The aperture was set to F8: for a sensitivity of ISO 200, the shutter speed resulted 1/25s. After the tripod test, I took a bunch of shots handheld, using the same settings and selected a good one. Finally, I bumped up the sensitivity to ISO 400 and took few more at F8 and 1/50s. The target was laser printed on a piece of paper (letter format); the quality of the target is mediocre (I'm trying now to print a high quality one using a high resolution printer and a much bigger format). However, the target is good enough for testing the IS efficiency. Cropping a central square of 400 x 400 pixels from each selected photo, the comparison can be seen in the attached picture. The conclusion is that IS system of EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM Lens works. And it works better than expected (seems to be more efficient than my EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 IS USM Lens). It is good to know that you can rely on IS for long focal lengths: wildlife and landscapes in good light may be areas where one can benefit on IS.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spoli Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 Another image of the lens: retracted and extended.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 There are a whole bunch of images shot with this lens on a Rebel XT here: http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/ef70300is Of course it would also be nice to see full frame performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_ziegler2 Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Is this a new version of the lens? I bought a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM back in April 2005, along with my 20D body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spoli Posted October 6, 2005 Author Share Posted October 6, 2005 This is not Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 DO IS USM -- that lens contains diffractive optics, the Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS USM does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now