Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM

Demers18 · Dec 10, 2012

I'm looking at upgrading my kit lens 55-250mm for the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM and was wondering if anyone here has any experience with it?
I want the extra focal length and better glass. I will eventually upgrade later to the more expensive ones but I'm positive this will do the trick for now, especially at the price I can get it for new at the local store.
Any info would be great.

Thanks

Demers18 · Dec 10, 2012

Anyone?

Demers18 · Dec 11, 2012

Derrel? KmH? MLeek?

Has anyone ever used this lens?

thetrue · Dec 11, 2012

I use this lens regularly. It's not quite as sharp as I would like, but it does get the job done. Definitely try to avoid using it in low light situations unless you have outstanding high ISO performance though.

Demers18 · Dec 11, 2012

thetrue said:
I use this lens regularly. It's not quite as sharp as I would like, but it does get the job done. Definitely try to avoid using it in low light situations unless you have outstanding higher ISO performance though.

That is very good to know. I shoot with a 7D so I think the ISO isn't too bad.
I plan to use it mainly for wildlife and for the zoom. Don't plant on using it too much at night.

thetrue · Dec 11, 2012

You should be good to go then. Btw, I thought at first that you said 75-300, which is the one I use most, the 70-300 is a good bit sharper.

Derrel · Dec 11, 2012

a review of it:

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS - APS-C Format Review / Retest

jaomul · Dec 11, 2012

I know not exactly what you asked but Iupgraded to the tamron 70-300 vc which gets as good if not better general reviews to the canon. The only advantage I got was the 50mm and that I can use it on a ff camera. If you can do without the extra 50mm I'd say keep your 55-250, you wont improve much for a big enough outlay, the 55-250 is great and lighter also

scorpion_tyr · Dec 12, 2012

I've used the 75-300 both USM and non and the 70-300mm IS USM and while the optics on the 70-300 appear bettet than the other two, to me it's not quite what a $500-700 lens should be capable of. IMO, the 75-300mm USM for about $230 brand new would save you some cash, and you can probably pick up a gently used one for about $150, try it out, and if you don't like it turn around and sell it for the same.

With all that being said, if IS is something you will be using the 70-300mm IS USM does a pretty darn good job. I've shot pretty good images at 300mm and 1/8 second. Overall to me the 70-300mm IS USM isn't worth the extra cash, but it may be to you.

Samerr9 · Dec 12, 2012

I have this lens, and I have the 70 200 L f4. Honestly, The 70-300 is not sharp! and I avoid using it although it has the IS and 70-200 doesn't. They are around the same price range.. If you are looking for sharpness this lens wont give it to u.. the 70 200 f4 is really really sharp if there was no motion blur also it focuses much faster..

KenC · Dec 12, 2012

I've been using the 70-300 IS (non-L) for almost four years now. I have gotten mostly very sharp images with it, but some that are not as sharp. It seems to me that if the lens is capable of making sharp images, then the ones that are not are probably mostly user error. I get less than optimum sharpness more often at 300, although some shots at 300 are just fine. I haven't done an exhaustive study, but I suspect that the ones that are not were shot in relatively poor light at too low an ISO setting, and hence either wide open or at a lower shutter speed (or both!). The IS does work very well, but you have to give it a fighting chance, which I may not be doing consistently.

However, since I rely on IS a lot in the city, where I can't really set up a tripod easily, the choice is this lens or an IS L zoom, which costs twice as much, doesn't go to 300 and attracts unwelcome attention. If you shoot landscapes in the country with a tripod, then perhaps the 70-200/4 and a 1.4x extender would be a better investment.

Demers18 · Dec 12, 2012

scorpion_tyr said:
I've used the 75-300 both USM and non and the 70-300mm IS USM and while the optics on the 70-300 appear bettet than the other two, to me it's not quite what a $500-700 lens should be capable of. IMO, the 75-300mm USM for about $230 brand new would save you some cash, and you can probably pick up a gently used one for about $150, try it out, and if you don't like it turn around and sell it for the same.

With all that being said, if IS is something you will be using the 70-300mm IS USM does a pretty darn good job. I've shot pretty good images at 300mm and 1/8 second. Overall to me the 70-300mm IS USM isn't worth the extra cash, but it may be to you.

The key is that I can currently get it for $400. If it doesn't end up working out I think I could get my money back pretty easily.

Samerr9 said:
I have this lens, and I have the 70 200 L f4. Honestly, The 70-300 is not sharp! and I avoid using it although it has the IS and 70-200 doesn't. They are around the same price range.. If you are looking for sharpness this lens wont give it to u.. the 70 200 f4 is really really sharp if there was no motion blur also it focuses much faster..

It also comes at much higher price point as I would want to get the IS version. I thank you for the input though.

KenC said:
I've been using the 70-300 IS (non-L) for almost four years now. I have gotten mostly very sharp images with it, but some that are not as sharp. It seems to me that if the lens is capable of making sharp images, then the ones that are not are probably mostly user error. I get less than optimum sharpness more often at 300, although some shots at 300 are just fine. I haven't done an exhaustive study, but I suspect that the ones that are not were shot in relatively poor light at too low an ISO setting, and hence either wide open or at a lower shutter speed (or both!). The IS does work very well, but you have to give it a fighting chance, which I may not be doing consistently.

However, since I rely on IS a lot in the city, where I can't really set up a tripod easily, the choice is this lens or an IS L zoom, which costs twice as much, doesn't go to 300 and attracts unwelcome attention. If you shoot landscapes in the country with a tripod, then perhaps the 70-200/4 and a 1.4x extender would be a better investment.

True, but combine those two things and we're talking of close to a $1500 investment that I'm not ready to do. I think I'm going to go for the lens and upgrade further down the line. I think I could get what I paid for at the $400 price tag.

Dao · Dec 12, 2012

If you already have the 55-250mm lens, you would gain some, but not much when going to 70-300mm IS lens. A little sharper and slightly increase reach. When you look at the viewfinder, 250mm vs 300mm is not much at all.

It is an upgrade, but not a a whole lot.

Demers18 · Dec 12, 2012

Dao said:
If you already have the 55-250mm lens, you would gain some, but not much when going to 70-300mm IS lens. A little sharper and slightly increase reach. When you look at the viewfinder, 250mm vs 300mm is not much at all.

It is an upgrade, but not a a whole lot.

I guess I should have researched a little more before committing myself to giving my 55-250mm lens away. I assumed that it would be a much better lens since it is twice the price.

Dao · Dec 12, 2012

The problem is the telephoto kit zoom lens is not that bad nowadays. Before the first version of EF-S 55-250mm IS lens released, the low cost consumer grade telephoto zoom lenses were the EF 75-300mm (few versions). And that 75-300mm lens was not that good optically when compared with the 70-300mm IS lens.

If you are going to spend $400 for upgrading the 55-250mm lens and not in a hurry, as others mentioned, think about the used 70-200mm f/4. I bought my from local craiglist for $450 about a year or so ago. The used price I saw ranging from $400 to low $500.

I am not saying the 70-300mm IS lens is bad. I have one and got good result from it. But now, I am in the process of selling it. Nowadays, I only take the 70-200mm lens instead of the 70-300mm IS when I go to the Zoo because it produce better result.