Reasons to be afraid

[paulo_fonseca1]

<p>I have a Canon 7D and I am in the market for a consumer-level tele zoom lens. I have the opportunity to buy a used 70-300 is usm like new, still under warranty for ~330EU. I have seen the reviews, and it seems that the lens is optically decent but has a few mechanical and ergonomic flaws (no FTM, no internal focus, lens creep). Ok, I am willing to compromise as I cannot justify paying 4x more for the L version. One thing bugs me though: AF speed. I have seen people complaining about AF tracking speed. So, do I really have reasons to be afraid that I will be unable to take nice actions shots (say kids sports, animals,...)? Could any 7D shooter kindly report on her/his real-life experience?<br>

Alternatively, I could go for a Tamron 70-300 VC USD brand new for about the same price. I have never had any off-brand lens and, to be honest, I had decided never to get one and stick to genuine Canon lenses because of the scary QC stories we hear, and because I think that the brand lenses, even if not always the best in all aspects do offer more balanced compromises and are more reliable, and retain better re-sale value. In particular, I have heard of inconsistent exposure problems with this Tamron despite the otherwise very favourable reviews. I confess: I am faint hearted and I'd better avoid having to send a new lens in for calibration or something like that. Again, do I have real reasons to be afraid? More generally, do you think this off-brand phobia is justifiable.<br>

I am asking this because I am a bit skeptical about technical reviews in general. I once had a similar dilemma when deciding to buy the Canon 28mm f1.8. If it were for the technical reviews, I should have probably not got it, but I finally did and it happens to be one my favourites. Thanks for any input.</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>70-300 IS USM is a pretty nice lens. I used it on a 7D for a few years (I now moved to a 70-200 f/4 IS) and I can confirm most reviews you can get online. It's main limitation is a somewhat slow AF, yet I managed to shot professional hockey with it, and got decent results. Of course, with the 70-200, and faster AF, I get more keepers.<br /> I have a a set on Flickr dedicated to ice hockey, most shots are with 70-300, the more recent one are with 70-200. With 70-300 it was harder to freeze the action, but still possible to get decent shots:<br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/massimofoti/sets/72157624496924451/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/massimofoti/sets/72157624496924451/</a><br /> Tamron 70-300 VC looks like a good lens too, very good value for money. But I am not sure its AF is faster than Canon 70-300 IS USM. Hope others may give some input on this.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>No reason to be afraid. Do a little research and try them out before buying and you'll make the right choice. No mystery here. If you need fast AF, get a telezoom with internal focus. Front element focus is inherently slow but apparently cheaper and easier to design. I owned the old 75-300 IS and 100-300 USM zooms and the latter has rear element focus and really rips. The former uses front element focus and is painfully slow.</p>

<p>The Tammy sports internal focus and a non-rotating front element, while the Canon uses front element focus and rotates. I'm not a fan of Tamron (especially the terrible name which is oft confused with tampon) but the tammy certainly has a big AF advantage.</p>

[matthijs]

Dear Paolo,

 

The EF 70-300 IS USM is a very decent lens. It might have some of the flaws you've listed but unless I'm very much

mistaken every USM lens has FTM focussing.

 

I'd say 330 euros is a nice price. You can probably sell it without loss should it not perform to your liking.

 

All the best, Matthijs.

[phule]

<p>[[every USM lens has FTM focussing.]]</p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-75-300mm-f-4-5.6-III-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">75-300mm III USM</a> (an inexpensive consumer telephoto zoom lens) is just one example of a lens having the USM label but not having FTM.</p>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Lenses with ring-type USM all have FTM. Those with micro-USM usually do not, albeit the EF 50 1.4 USM is an exception.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>Paolo- I have a 7D, and have shot with the 70-300 USM IS F5.6. (not the 75-300).</p>

<p>The lens is capable of producing very sharp images ...As long as you're not trying to do birds in flight, or race cars at speed. For these tasks it is just too slow to focus or track with. Every other situation I used it for, it worked out fairly well. Youth sports, candids, close ups etc. As it is a relatively slow F5.6 @200-300mm, You will need to be very aware of your lighting conditions and the shutter speed you will be using this with. 300mm on a 7D 18MP Cropped sensor= Handholding at 1/1000 shutter speed or higher, even with IS, if you want an acceptable keeper rate.<br>

<br />Ok, that said- You've purchased the best Canon body there is for kids/sports/action etc. (except for the 1DMKIV)- you might want to look into a 70-200F4L going forward. It is more expensive, but coupled with the resolution capability of your 7D, the IQ really IS that much better, especially once you start to crop. (A cropped image from this lens will be equal to and often better than a full size image from the 70-300 f5.6.) The IS works better, it focuses much faster, and more accurately. Just food for future thought.</p>

<p> </p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p><em>I once had a similar dilemma when deciding to buy the Canon 28mm f1.8. If it were for the technical reviews, I should have probably not got it, but I finally did and it happens to be one my favourites.</em></p>

<p>Chances are, the same thing will happen when you purchase a 70-300, Canon or Tamron. Do not be afraid, these are good lenses.</p>

[michaeljlawson]

<p>The Osprey in flight shots in my portfolio were taken with the Tamron SP 70-300 VC. There is no doubt however that the focus isn't the fastest, but better than my Canon 75-300 was. It took some real effort to get those shots. If you are concerned about missing moments at a sports event, you may be better served with the 70-200 mentioned above. If you are willing to put in the effort and practice with either of the 70-300s, you can get the shots and save a few bucks.</p>

[paulo_fonseca1]

<p>Thanks everybody for the invaluable feedback.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It might have some of the flaws you've listed but unless I'm very much mistaken every USM lens has FTM focussing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, this is not the case Matthijs :-( I would happily trade the ring USM motor in my 10-22 for one in the 70-300 where, in my view, it would make much more sense.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a a set on Flickr dedicated to ice hockey, most shots are with 70-300, the more recent one are with 70-200. With 70-300 it was harder to freeze the action, but still possible to get decent shots:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/massimofoti/sets/72157624496924451/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/massimofoti/sets/72157624496924451/</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's funny. You see, that's why I much prefer field reports over technical reports. Ice hockey must be one of those canonical situations people give as an example as when you definetly need to throw a few thousand bucks into a professional f/2.8 lens. Yet, here comes our friend and shows us not one, but several nice shots very competently taken with a "consumer" lens. This is quite refreshing. Thanks Massimo.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Osprey in flight shots in my portfolio were taken with the Tamron SP 70-300 VC. There is no doubt however that the focus isn't the fastest, but better than my Canon 75-300 was.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for sharing those Michael. Really nice ones. Have you ever noticed any inconsintent exposure problem with the Tamron? For example, Osprey_6551 seems a little darker (underexposed?) compared to Osprey_6539 to my untrained eyes...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course, with the 70-200, and faster AF, I get more keepers.<br>

It took some real effort to get those shots. If you are concerned about missing moments at a sports event, you may be better served with the 70-200 mentioned above.<br>

Ok, that said- You've purchased the best Canon body there is for kids/sports/action etc. (except for the 1DMKIV)- you might want to look into a 70-200F4L going forward.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it seems that many people think that the 70-200 f4 replaces the 70-300 with benefits. What about the 200-300 range? Don't you miss it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is more expensive, but coupled with the resolution capability of your 7D, the IQ really IS that much better, especially once you start to crop. (A cropped image from this lens will be equal to and often better than a full size image from the 70-300 f5.6.) </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow Randall, this seems quite a strong statement. Does anyone else support this claim? If things are like you say, I may start to think again... actually the 70-200 f/4 IS would be within my grasp in terms of $$. It's just that, man, this begins to make too much money for these things and I am just an (unskilled) amateur. :-)</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>Paulo, I have posted a couple of 200+% crops taken with my 70-200L F2.8 II IS recently, it is only my understanding that the 200F4L IS has similar resolution -but those references come from very reputable posters of this forum. You are correct to take everything you read with a little skepticism, I highly recommend you test drive these lenses before deciding, either way. Here's one-</p><div></div>

[randallfarhy]

<p>To be fair-here is the original image the crop was taken from. I chimped the focus and was scanning to see where critical hit, that's when I decided to make an example from it.</p><div></div>

[michaeljlawson]

<p>Paulo, I've had no exposure issues with the Tamron. I was at the Osprey nest twice that day for an hour each time easy. The light changed over that time, and I was spinning around as the pair of them flew around my location so the sun was at a different angle for each shot. Not to mention potential differences in my post processing.</p>

[massimo_foti]

<blockquote>

<p>It's funny. You see, that's why I much prefer field reports over technical reports. Ice hockey must be one of those canonical situations people give as an example as when you definitely need to throw a few thousand bucks into a professional f/2.8 lens. Yet, here comes our friend and shows us not one, but several nice shots very competently taken with a "consumer" lens. This is quite refreshing. Thanks Massimo.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Glad to be of help. To be fair, I have to say I took those shots in a well-lit arena where our local pro team plays (Switzerland). I also had to move ISO up to 1600. I was pretty much pushing the limits of both the lens, in terms of AF, and the camera, in terms of ISO. Non-pro ice hockey is more challenging, since light isn't as good, in most of those cases you definitely need faster lenses</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>actually the 70-200 f/4 IS would be within my grasp in terms of $$. It's just that, man, this begins to make too much money for these things and I am just an (unskilled) amateur. :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am an unskilled amateur too. I can say that at one point, using 70-300 for ice hockey I was loosing shots due to sloppy AF and, more in general, I felt the lens was a main limiting factor. I moved to 70-200 f/4 IS and now... My skills are the limiting factor once again :-)<br>

As for the range, I don't miss 200-300 for ice hockey that much, but I miss it in a few more cases. So I would like to get a longer lens in the future. I hope Canon will finally update its 100-400, that would be a great addition to my kit (fairly good for airshows too). I may consider Canon 70-300 L too if no new 100-400 will hit the market. I haven't made a choice, it's not high priority for me</p>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>I have heard of inconsistent exposure problems with this Tamron despite the otherwise very favourable reviews. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most lenses only have one way of changing the amount of that travels through the lens, the aperture. You can set it from a narrow hole to wide open. If the aperture doesn't respond to a command from the camera the camera will almost always post an error code and not take the shot. The only other way the amount of light through the lens can change is by the zoom. If you set the aperture to to wide open (F4) you will get F4 at 70mm. If you then change the zoom to 300mm you will get F.6 (not F4). So if you manually set the exposure don't change the zoom. For Autoexposure the camera will set the exposure to and close down the aperture within about 1/4 of a second and mose people don't change the zoom during that time. </p>

<p>most of the time the exposure meter and user error is the cause of inconsistent expsoure. For any areas you have bright areas and dark areas. The expsure meter reading will depend on how much dark area and how much of the bight area it sees. If the user move the camera a little bit from one shot to the next the ratio of bright to dark may change dramatically causing a big change of expsure. Inconsistant expsure is generally not a lens issue but a instead a user issue.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It is more expensive, but coupled with the resolution capability of your 7D, the IQ really IS that much better, especially once you start to crop. (A cropped image from this lens will be equal to and often better than a full size image from the 70-300 f5.6.)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think Randall is refering to the image circle. Generally lenses produce the best image uality in the cener of the image. Image quality tends to degrade near the edge of the image. The 70-300 EF lens is designed to produce an image large enough for film or full frame digital cameras. The 7D is not a full frame camera and as a result it's image sensor doesn't see the edge of the image circle and therefor doesn't see the worst areas of image circle. So if you take a picture with a full frame 5D with the 70-300 and then take an image with the 7D and 70-300 and compare the two images the very center of both images will look the same. However the edge of the 5D image will probably show some vignetting and image quality loss and some image softness at the edge of the image while the 7D image won't show anything at the edges that the 5D saw.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>Steve, you've brought up a good point regarding apparent IQ when comparing the different sensors, and it could be argued the image would appear better from the 7D because of this. However, that comparison isn't in the equation. When comparing these two lenses on a single sensor (7D in this case), resolving power of the lens comes into consideration. The 70-300 is capable of producing an excellent image at full file size, as is the 70-200L IS series.<br>

Once cropping comes into play, the 70-200L IS series and their better resolving power start to outshine the 70-300. If you examine the pictures posted above, the detail present on the extreme magnification can't even be seen in the full size image. So, it is my firm belief (from experience) that a 70-200L IS series is fully capable of producing a cropped image (from 200mm) that equals or exceeds a full size image from the 70-300 taken at 300mm on a 7D. The 70-300mm just doesn't have the resolving power to support much in the way of cropping in post. Now, if both were used on an older body, say a 12mp rebel, then the sensor might not be able to take advantage of the extra resolution offered by the L series lens. As a result, IQ comparisons between the two might appear similar-giving the imppression that the 70-300 5.6 IQ is just as good as that of the 70-200L series. Perhaps this is the reason so many called it an L in a less expensive casing. I won't even go into the chromatic abberation comparisons except to say it's a lot more noticeable (in many circumstances) on the 70-300 5.6, without pixel peeping. <br>

To be fair, the 2.8 may exhibit slightly more sharpenss at F4 than the F4 lens would at wide open because it is stopped down a bit. If we take it a step further, one can combine a 1.4TC with the 70-200. I havn't done this so I can't offer an opinion on the IQ, but I have seen images on this site taken with this combination, and they look extremely good.</p>

<p>You also hit on another advantage to the 70-200L- it's a constant aperture lens when used wide open, so the user won't run into the manual setting situation you mentioned.</p>

[linda_jones1]

<p>The 70-200f4IS is a beautiful lens. If you think 200 is long enough, its a quality you won't regret. It's probably my sharpest zoom. Unreal. Good lenses are generally very good investments. Prices have been going up, so you can sell them used a few years later for almost the same as you payed for it. Basically, when you sell it, you have used it for free. Not always so true for less expensive lenses. [JFYI] ;)</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>I bought the 70-300 IS (non-L) in preference to the 70-200L (non-IS) for two reasons: the quality of the 70-300 at 200mm is pretty damn close to the 70-200 (and several reviews also say this) but also I get the option of 300mm. Secondly it has IS and this has made it a much more verstaile lens for the sort of opportunistic photography I do (If you have a specific remit for your new lens then the 70-200 may be a better bet).<br>

The AF on the 70-300 is not slow - it is just not as quick as the 70-200 f4. But I have a decent hit rate taking pictures of my dogs running towards me as well as birds in flight so do not be worried about that.<br>

I have not found lens creep to be a problem as it is something I have got used to and (un)setting the focus lock has become an instinctive action. And I never used FTM so I don't miss it.</p>

<p>I have since bought the 70-200 f4 L IS and it is one amazing piece of design. I still stand by my original assessment of the 70-300 but the truth is that the 70-200 is on my camera far more than the 70-300. The constant f4 is often useful and the AF is much quicker resulting in reacton shots being successful more often than the 70-300. Plus it is such a joy to use from a mechanical design point of view.</p>

<p>I used the 70-300 more on my 30D and have hardly used it on my new 7D so I cannot add anything at this point to Randall's comment on how sensor resolution may show differences between the lenses.<br>

And following on from Linda's post, the 70-300 (here in the UK) holds it price well because, I presume, it is so damned good for the money. So selling it on 6 months later will be little more than renting it for 2 weeks.</p>

<p>Going back 5 years, and repeating my option of 70-300 IS versus 70-200 non-IS I would still choose the 70-300 (and if this is any indication, even though I have my 70-200 I still can't bring myself to sell my 70-300). But given a choice between 70-300 IS and 70-200 IS it would be the 70-200 and rely on cropping. But that is based on how I take photos.</p>

 

[paulo_fonseca1]

<p>Thanks everybody.<br>

Randall, the crop is quite good indeed. And, yeah, I tend to be a bit skeptical about everything. Sorry, it has to do with my formal training and has become second nature. It is not personal nor I am questioning the reputation of any member of the forum.<br>

I will perhaps then take a closer look at the 70-200f4IS to see if it is worth for me. I have the 18-135mm kit lens and so there's a lot of overlap in terms of range. Of course, I know the 70-200 plays in another league but, to be honest, although not mind blown, I am satisfied with the IQ of the kit lens.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>The 70-200 f/4 could be coupled with a 1.4x teleconverter and would give you a reach of 280 at f/5.6, only 20mm shorter than the 70-300 with the same minimum aperture...I don't think you'd miss it. :)</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>Well, a teleconverter means extra money too...<br>

It would be interesting to compare AF on "naked" 70-300 vs 70-200 f/4 + 1.4x. I don't have a teleconverter and I sold my 70-300 to get the 70-200. Hope somebody with real-world experience could contribute something more.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I routinely use my 70-200mm f/4L IS with the 1.4x TC attached on my 7D and experience good AF speed in that mode. I can shoot birds in flight with it, but I usually have the 500mm f/4L attached for BIF. I'm using the Series II EF 1.4x TC and wouldn't recommend the more expensive Series II unless you've got the very latest generation of lenses (Series II).</p>

<p>I've never compared the 70-200mm +1.4x TC AF speed to the 70-300mm. My guess is that the 70-300mm will be a slight bit faster, but nothing huge.</p>

[paulo_fonseca1]

Hi guys. Just to let you know, while I was fussing around, the 70-300 has been sold. So I decided to bite the bullet and

get a 70-200 f/4 IS. I bought one in a local store, but I had it for less than 24h because the autofocus motor was

defective and so I returned it since they had no other in stock to exchange. During the only afternoon I had it in my

hands, however, I did not find the IQ that impressive, even when focus seemed accurate. But, of course, I do not want

to base my judgment on a defective sample.

The fact is, although I am not superstitious, it seems like if the Gods of photography were pushing me towards the

Tamron, and so I guess I am going to give it a try. :-)

[linda_jones1]

<p>Paulo, I wish you the best, and sorry you had a bad experience with the 70-200IS! And good luck with the Tamron. I know my experience with buying a new expensive lens is that I set myself up for some disappointment by expecting bells to ring and lots of OOOoohs and ahhhhs. They will come. ;)</p>