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

[decado]

So I just brought back my EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS due to some image stabilization and lcd distortion problems and I decided to trade up to the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6. I now realize just how big a difference a good lens can make, this lens isn't as good as a L lens of course but wow this thing is incredibly sharp looking, I can only imagine how good a L lens would look. Too bad I have to wait 18 months to pay off my Best Buy card to buy a L lens. Also, this has ruined my kit EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for me since it's just so much sharper.

 

[JustAnEngineer]

The EF 70-200mm f/4L USM would have been about the same price as the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ... but without IS and with only 2/3 of the reach :meh:.

 

[DennyCrane]

So I just brought back my EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS due to some image stabilization and lcd distortion problems and I decided to trade up to the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6. I now realize just how big a difference a good lens can make, this lens isn't as good as a L lens of course but wow this thing is incredibly sharp looking, I can only imagine how good a L lens would look. Too bad I have to wait 18 months to pay off my Best Buy card to buy a L lens. Also, this has ruined my kit EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for me since it's just so much sharper.

I just picked up that lens the other day. So far, it's impressive. I'm hanging onto my 55-250 though... there's times it's size is an advantage and it's better for bugs and flowers. The image stabilization on your new lens is exceptional and day and night improvement over the smaller lens. Also, the USM-motored autofocus is whisper-quiet.

 

[decado]

The EF 70-200mm f/4L USM would have been about the same price as the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ... but without IS and with only 2/3 of the reach :meh:.

Are you kidding me? It's $1400 at Best Buy, this lens was only $650.

 

[decado]

So I just brought back my EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS due to some image stabilization and lcd distortion problems and I decided to trade up to the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6. I now realize just how big a difference a good lens can make, this lens isn't as good as a L lens of course but wow this thing is incredibly sharp looking, I can only imagine how good a L lens would look. Too bad I have to wait 18 months to pay off my Best Buy card to buy a L lens. Also, this has ruined my kit EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for me since it's just so much sharper.

I just picked up that lens the other day. So far, it's impressive. I'm hanging onto my 55-250 though... there's times it's size is an advantage and it's better for bugs and flowers. The image stabilization on your new lens is exceptional and day and night improvement over the smaller lens. Also, the USM-motored autofocus is whisper-quiet.

How is it better for bugs and flowers? Anyway, I can't afford to have both right now so I'd rather have the crystal clear, great build quality, 70-300mm.

 

[Josh66]

The EF 70-200mm f/4L USM would have been about the same price as the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ... but without IS and with only 2/3 of the reach :meh:.

Are you kidding me? It's $1400 at Best Buy, this lens was only $650.

I've never seen it over $600.

Are you sure you're looking at the right lens?

70-200 f/4 L. NOT IS.


There are 4 versions of this lens, each with progressively larger price tags.

f/4
f/4 IS
f/2.8
f/2.8 IS

 

[DennyCrane]

So I just brought back my EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS due to some image stabilization and lcd distortion problems and I decided to trade up to the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6. I now realize just how big a difference a good lens can make, this lens isn't as good as a L lens of course but wow this thing is incredibly sharp looking, I can only imagine how good a L lens would look. Too bad I have to wait 18 months to pay off my Best Buy card to buy a L lens. Also, this has ruined my kit EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for me since it's just so much sharper.

I just picked up that lens the other day. So far, it's impressive. I'm hanging onto my 55-250 though... there's times it's size is an advantage and it's better for bugs and flowers. The image stabilization on your new lens is exceptional and day and night improvement over the smaller lens. Also, the USM-motored autofocus is whisper-quiet.

How is it better for bugs and flowers? Anyway, I can't afford to have both right now so I'd rather have the crystal clear, great build quality, 70-300mm.

The 70-300 requires you to be almost a foot and a half further away at full zoom to be in focus. It doesn't seem like a lot, but it makes macro shots a pain.

 

[decado]

The EF 70-200mm f/4L USM would have been about the same price as the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ... but without IS and with only 2/3 of the reach :meh:.

Are you kidding me? It's $1400 at Best Buy, this lens was only $650.

I've never seen it over $600.

Are you sure you're looking at the right lens?

70-200 f/4 L. NOT IS.


There are 4 versions of this lens, each with progressively larger price tags.

f/4
f/4 IS
f/2.8
f/2.8 IS

$830 at best buy actually, little bit much for me.

 

[Josh66]

$830 at best buy actually, little bit much for me.

Wow, it must have really gone up... I think I paid just under $600 for mine.

 

[cfusionpm]

I just picked up that lens the other day. So far, it's impressive. I'm hanging onto my 55-250 though... there's times it's size is an advantage and it's better for bugs and flowers. The image stabilization on your new lens is exceptional and day and night improvement over the smaller lens. Also, the USM-motored autofocus is whisper-quiet.

How is it better for bugs and flowers? Anyway, I can't afford to have both right now so I'd rather have the crystal clear, great build quality, 70-300mm.

The 70-300 requires you to be almost a foot and a half further away at full zoom to be in focus. It doesn't seem like a lot, but it makes macro shots a pain.

Yeah, you need to be ~5ft away for the closest focus. I've tried doing macro shots with my 70-300, but its definately difficult to get close or fill the frame with that cumbersome focus distance.

 

[ErectedGryphon]

I used to have this lens, and loved it while I owned it, it's a great lens. The only reason I got rid of it was to get L glass. I now have the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, and I love it! I sometimes miss that old 70-300, but I have no regrets, as my ultimate goal is to trade up all of my lenses to 2.8L glass.

 

[decado]

I used to have this lens, and loved it while I owned it, it's a great lens. The only reason I got rid of it was to get L glass. I now have the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, and I love it! I sometimes miss that old 70-300, but I have no regrets, as my ultimate goal is to trade up all of my lenses to 2.8L glass.

One day I will have some L glass, unfortunately that day is at least 18 months off.