should i buy Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens?

[ana_leticia]

i own the Canon Digital Rebel XSi 12.2 MP Digital SLR Camera with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens </h1>

i want to buy new lens for my trip to europe but i don't know which one to get .. should i get this one?

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Why yes you should.</p>

<p>All kidding aside this is a very good lens which should do quite well with your camera.</p>

<p>Here is a test from Photozone.</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review</p>

[photos of hans koot]

<p>I used it and its very good, no hesitation, it will fit very well with your kit. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I've even got the fairly un-great EF 75-300mm IS lens (the all-time first IS) which I bought almost immediately before the newer and much improved 70-300 came out. I'm happy enough with the old one to have stuck with it, but if I were faced with the choice between the very nice EF-S 55-250mm IS and the older EF 70-300mm IS, I'd buy the 70-300 right now. There are also some bargains in the L lines in this area, but you lose some focal length and even IS, and I'd always get the IS where I have any choice at all.</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>I've had this lens for about a year. I was very pleased with the results, and only upgraded because I needed more reach. Here's two of my photos taken with this lens:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/7632221<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/7929278&size=lg</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Yes</p>

[songtsen]

<p><a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00QAU9 ">70-300/4-5.6 IS versus 55-250/4-5.6 IS</a></p>

[John Crowe]

<p>You already have an IS lens for dimly lit interiors. Telephotos are not usually used in scenarios where IS is required. Also consider the Canon EF 70-200/4 L for only $100 more, for superior image quality.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>John,</p>

<p>I disagree that telephotos don't need IS. If anything, telephotos are the exact class of lens that benefit the most from IS. Reducing camera shake becomes more and more critical as focal length increases.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>Telephotos are not usually used in scenarios where IS is required</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use my 70-300 for landscapes as much as I use the 17-55. So in taht instance I would say that IS is <em>more useful</em> on the 70-300 than it is on the 17-55.</p>

<p>I think the 70-300 is worthwhile getting. The 55-250 is lighter and more compact but apparently not as good quality as the 70-300 (I haven't used the 55-250). So what compromise you want to make - weight or ultimate image quality and much of this depends on how you will view the images. Will it be on monitor, or print; and if print, what size? Viewing on-screen or prints up to 8x12 the differences will be much less than you imagine.<br>

Have a look at this site which compares them: <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx</a><br>

Remember that the phot example on the review page is equivalent to a print about 5 feet wide!</p>

[hjoseph7]

If you are going to use it to shoot sports, my advice would be to invest in the 300mm f4. For anything else it's not a bad lens, but it leans towards the mediocre.

[hjoseph7]

Sorry I got this lens mixed up with the original 75-300 4.5/5/6 which was a dud in my opinion.

[ds_meador]

<p>Ana,<br>

I have the XSi and the EF-S 55-250. Here's a link to my Flickr set of photos taken with that combination.<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/stanmeador/sets/72157622937861704/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/stanmeador/sets/72157622937861704/</a><br>

This will give you an idea of what I've been able to do with the 55-250. Overall I find it meets my needs. Sometimes I wish for faster AF and sometimes I wish it were a faster lens, but most of the time it does just fine!<br>

I hope this helps you in your decision making.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[jeff_delisio]

<p>I have one in very good condition if you are hunting for a used one...</p>

<p>My only complaints with this lens is that it can hunt around a bit when you are trying to focus in certain situations - for example a market scene with people milling around. It has a bit of noise from the IS element as well but I never found that disconcerting. It is not a small lens but reasonable to work with even in a crowd.</p>

<p>Someone mentioned the 70 - 200 F/4 lenses, there are dozens upon dozens of posts around of people comparing and debating between this lens and the non-IS version of the 70 - 200 as they fall into a similar price range. Depending on how much you like to torture yourself you can read through those and bounce back and forth ad infinitum....</p>

[koot_marais1]

<p>I used a 70-200 f4 lens as a travel lens, but when I changed this in a deal for a 70-200 f2.8 IS lens, I was without a travel lens. I bought the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS and used it on my previous trip. While it has a nice range, I was thoroughly disappointed with it. It is not in the same league as the 70-200 f4 lens and has a terrible bouquet. The end result is that I sold the 70-300 and bought a 70-200 f4 lens, which by the way is a wonderful lens and I actually prefer this lens to my f2.8. It is a bit sharper and due to the smaller size more versatile. </p>

[songtsen]

<p><em>"It is not in the same league as the 70-200 f4 lens and has a terrible bouquet." </em></p>

<p>Sorry, I don't understand this. Is it a smelly lens?</p>

[madwand]

<p>I suggest considering the EF-S 15-85 instead as an all-in-one solution with greater utility and quality than the existing kit lens. It gives a FF-equivalent field of view of 24-135 which is very nice, better than the 24-105 (on a FF) I last took on travel, which served the majority of my shots while the 70-200 f/4 rarely made it out of the hotel. In this view, which is of course personal and not entirely universal, a long lens is often more of a liability than a necessity in travel, and one's better served by a better and wider standard lens, with the long lens as an after-thought if that, optimized for portability (e.g. the EF-S 55-250 would be preferred as it's more portable and cheaper).</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>For landscape and shooting in tight spaces you might be better off with the EF-S 10-22, though.</p>