Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM

[barnaby_harding1]

<p>Good evening!<br>

There is a good opportunity for me to buy a new one of these for around £300, and I would like it to replace my Tamron 70-300 LD DI Macro that I have been using since I got my first DSLR a year ago, but feel like it is not doing it for me anymore.<br>

Questions are:<br>

1. Does anyone have an opinion on the Canon? Does it live up to the very good Photozone review it got?<br>

2. Any comparisons with the Tamron to show anecdotally how good it might be?<br>

3. Is it worth instead saving up for the Canon 70-200 f4 L (NON-IS) even though it is markedly more expensive?</p>

<p>Bear in mind I am still on a budget and need to upgrade my Canon 18-55 IS kit lens to a Tamron 17-50 this year too!</p>

<p> </p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>I had one and didn't particularly like it, I thought it was overpriced and not that good optically, especially wide open, plus variable aperture sucks. I would have been much better off with the other lens you suggest</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Neither the Canon or the Tamron will be upgrades. Save up for the Canon 70-200/4 L (non-IS) and Canon 17-40/4 L, if you can. An even better option would be to buy both of them used. Check out keh.com</p>

[danield]

<blockquote>

<p><br /> 1. Does anyone have an opinion on the Canon? Does it live up to the very good Photozone review it got?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't have that particular lens but I haven't heard too many people arguing against the photozone review</p>

<blockquote>

<p>2. Any comparisons with the Tamron to show anecdotally how good it might be?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can't say I've seen too many around the net, I think the Tamron is more toward the bottom end of the pile and generally out of the radar of lens testers. With telephoto zooms you do get what you pay for. The new Tamron 70-300 VC is an alternative in a different league.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>3. Is it worth instead saving up for the Canon 70-200 f4 L (NON-IS) even though it is markedly more expensive?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a question with many good answers. With the 70-200 f/4 you lose IS (which limits the shooting capabilities significantly) for gaining about 1/2-2/3 of a stop across the range and a visible improvement in image and build quality. Is the gain in image quality worth the lost shooting opportunities due to lack of IS?<br>

If you are looking at the Canon 70-300 it's worth checking the Tamron 70-300 VC mentioned earlier as well, or, for a lower cost option, the Canon 55-250 IS.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>Barnaby, it really depends on how you're going to use the 70-300. The one I owned was very good in terms of picture quality, especially at the long end. However- it was very slow to focus, especially when compared to L series glass. It didn't serve well for youth sports or birding. Even though IQ was very good full image, it didn't hold up when more than slight cropping came into play. IS worked well enough, I was able to handhold it at shutter speeds below 1/800 (@300mm) on a cropped sensor body with acceptable results. My copy had an occasional, and quite random front/back focus issue on stationary subjects. I can't comment on any comparison to the Tamron.</p>

<p>The 70-200F4L will be a major upgrade-but you will lose 100mm on the long end, and IS. If you're not shooting birds or wildlife and primarily shoot in good light, then the F4L non IS would probably be the way to go. As I do a lot of bird photography, I went with the other way, with a 300mmF4L IS prime. Giving up the zoom capability wasn't a major factor at the time as I already had the 24-105, and was planning a Spring purchase of a 70-200L anyhow. Even though it was a good choice for my situation, give that a lot of thought before you take the plunge.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>I have the 70-200f4L IS and the 70-300 IS USM.<br />Firstly the 70-300. In my opinion it is as good as the reviews say, such as the-digital-picture.com which also has comparison to the 70-200 f4L. AF speed is pretty good and with 3-stop IS it works to some very helpfully low shutter speeds. Some reviews say that at 200mm, f5.6 it gets close to the 70-200 which is no mean achievement but I have only just done a detailed side-by-side comparison and the results are pending. Of course, the 70-300 wins out between 200 and 300, even though it gets a bit soft above 200. When I bought this lens I also thought seriously about the 70-200 f4 (non-IS) and weighed up the constant f4 versus IS - and decided that the IS was more important and I never regretted the decision. Inever expected L-grade build and was willing to pass on the reported improved quality. <br />Fast forward 5 years and a salary bonus meant the 70-200F4 IS was in my grasp. And I love it. It has a more responsive AF system, one more stop of IS and better colour saturation/contrast. The constant f4 can also be damned useful. On top of all that is the fact it is such a joy to use - better balanced than the 70-300 and mechanically far superior. I use it more than the 70-300 if only for the pleasure of doing so (should that be prefaced with "warning: gear porn alert!").<br />Deapite all that I have not changed my opinion that in a choice between 70-300 IS and 70-200 non-IS I would still go for the 70-300 for the IS. And if you can get it for £300 that is a good deal.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Get the Tamron 70-300 VC USD. You won't be dissappointed. As good optically as the Canon and better build and ergonomics, particularly the USD.</p>

[barnaby_harding1]

<p>Mike - thanks for that, and I will be interested to learn the results of your side-by-side comparison! I primarily shoot my children and various things outdoors, although I am looking to get into 'urban landscapes', a bit of street photography and nature photography in the future.<br>

I suppose I could save up for the 70-200L, but I reckon the 70-300 will do what I want it to.. ALTHOUGH - L lens sounds gorgeous and you can never replace those photos of children growing up, can you? Hmmmmm. It's just that I can also get the Tamron 17-50 for the same overall budget.<br>

As you say though, £300 would get me a new 70-300 and that is a good price. I am going to sleep on it some more and keep digesting your comments!</p>

[barnaby_harding1]

<p>HOLD ON A MINUTE! I have discovered that it's possible to buy a used 70-200 f4 L (non-IS) for less than £400! Now that does change things. Anyone with an L lens is more than likely to have looked after it too. <br>

OH DECISIONS, DECISIONS!</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Barnaby, just to add to your indecision.... I used to have the Canon 70-200 f4 L and sold it to buy the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS. The 70-200 was a bit 'short' in focal length for what I wanted and was also quite physically big for the amount of carrying around I wanted to do. So the 70-300 won despite not having the same image quality as the 70-200.</p>

<p>Comparing IQ, the 70-200 is 'very, very good'. If image quality is main thing for you then the 70-200 should come top. For me the 70-300 'very good' image quality is good enough for what I want. The main gripe I have with the 70-300 is the tendency for contrast to drop off near the 300 end of the range. Otherwise it is easily good enough for my needs. This can be seen in the pic below where the right side is a little murky but the image quality is otherwise quite good.</p>

<p>However you are not the only one with decisions. I am now thinking of getting the 70-300 L f4-5.6 as a way of getting the 70-200 image quality with the 70-300 package size......</p><div></div>

[drpath]

<p>I've had this lens for a number of years, and it's every bit as good as the stellar reviews suggest. As several others note, it's not a lens a pro would use for sports or birding. The AF is too slow and clunky. For me, the most annoying thing about it is that it does not have full time manual focus, despite being a USM lens. This is unfortunate because the lens focuses down to 1.5 meters at 300mm, a magnification of 1:4, making it a kind of tele-macro. It's easily the best bug and butterfly hunting lens I've ever used, giving you more IQ per dollar than any other telephoto zoom of my experience. It is especially great on my 5D, giving wonderful color, contrast and resolution.</p>

[barnaby_harding1]

<p>Hi!<br>

I am sold after much advice and more research - I am getting the 70-300! There is also another one for sale second hand that I think I might be able to get for about £250 so I am keeping everything crossed. The £300 model is a refurb from Canon, so that would come with a warranty as well. All good stuff!</p>

<p>All I need to do now is upgrade my body for a 50D at some point - that is my 'dream' camera for now. THanks for all the advice and comments - most helpful.</p>

[alexdi]

<p>To reinforce an earlier post, you might consider the Tamron 70-300 VC instead. Better AF, better contrast, better edge performance, and at least where I am, about 30% cheaper.</p>

[barnaby_harding1]

<p>Right - let's ramp it up a gear and throw the Canon 50D into the mix! I am seriously considering upgrading to this in the summer following a change of fortune, and wondered if the Canon 70-300 does the 15.1mp sensor justice?</p>

[barnaby_harding1]

<p>I have spent the last few days thinking this over very hard, and after MUCH digging, I think it is actually going to be the Tamron 70-300 VC USD that wins it. I will just need to make sure that sample quality is not an issue, as there have been a few reports of poor samples.<br>

It does sound like a great lens though. Thanks for all the responses.</p>