Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM

[TwoTwoLeft]

The 70-300 IS USM is a pretty good lens for the price as long as you don't need fast focus (I see you have a 7D... So fast focus must be important) and you don't really need it from 270-300mm, where it tends to get soft.

The 55-250 is really no better, it's just cheaper. It is a sharp little lens, but will show a fair amount of CA in certain lighting situations.

If I were you, I would save my money and get either a Sigma 50-500 or the EF 70-300 L. The 70-300 is much smaller and easier to travel with, it's super sharp all the way to 300mm, and it gives you f4 from 70-100mm. The focus is lightning fast to complement the 7D and it's also weather sealed.

But if you dont need the 300mm there is a plethora of choices with constant apertures in the 70-200 range.

 

[Demers18]

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.

I just took a quick look and there are two people selling that same lens for $500 in my area. My only concern is the IS. I wonder if its something that I will be missing in certain situations.

The 70-300 IS USM is a pretty good lens for the price as long as you don't need fast focus (I see you have a 7D... So fast focus must be important) and you don't really need it from 270-300mm, where it tends to get soft.

The 55-250 is really no better, it's just cheaper. It is a sharp little lens, but will show a fair amount of CA in certain lighting situations.

If I were you, I would save my money and get either a Sigma 50-500 or the EF 70-300 L. The 70-300 is much smaller and easier to travel with, it's super sharp all the way to 300mm, and it gives you f4 from 70-100mm. The focus is lightning fast to complement the 7D and it's also weather sealed.

But if you dont need the 300mm there is a plethora of choices with constant apertures in the 70-200 range.

The thing is that I don't want to have to wait for years before having a lens like that in my arsenal.

Decisions, decisions, decisions...

 

[Dao]

I just took a quick look and there are two people selling that same lens for $500 in my area. My only concern is the IS. I wonder if its something that I will be missing in certain situations.

Whether you need IS or not, it depends on the situation. If the environment has enough light to allow you to have fast enough shutter speed, you do not need IS.

This photo is shot with the 70-200mm f/4L hand held. The out of focus blur of the lens is also nice.

ISO 200, 1/400 shutter speed, f/4 at 200mm focal length. Post done with Lightroom. I up the ISO from 100 to 200 to achieve 1/400 shutter speed.

 

[Demers18]

Whether you need IS or not, it depends on the situation. If the environment has enough light to allow you to have fast enough shutter speed, you do not need IS.

This photo is shot with the 70-200mm f/4L hand held. The out of focus blur of the lens is also nice.

ISO 200, 1/400 shutter speed, f/4 at 200mm focal length. Post done with Lightroom. I up the ISO from 100 to 200 to achieve 1/400 shutter speed.

Well I think you've just sold me on this lens. Sharpness is definitely something I was looking for so this would be a true upgrade.

Thanks for your input. Much appreciated

 

[Demers18]

Just a little update that I picked up the 70-200mm f4.
I tried both lenses and found that the sharpness and the colours were much better than on the 70-300mm. I'm sure not having the IS will be an adjustment but I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Thanks to everyone for their input.

 

[Samerr9]

Congrats I think you have done the right choice.. I have both and really avoid the 70-300 ..

 

[Dubaiian]

Just a little update that I picked up the 70-200mm f4.
I tried both lenses and found that the sharpness and the colours were much better than on the 70-300mm. I'm sure not having the IS will be an adjustment but I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Thanks to everyone for their input.

And don't forget that if you need a bit more length, teleconvertor s may be a quick and cheap option.

 

[Demers18]

And don't forget that if you need a bit more length, teleconvertor s may be a quick and cheap option.

How does that affect sharpness?

 

[Dubaiian]

Can't comment specifically on the F4 as I have an f2.8 but th results are acceptable to me. If you're in the USA you may be able to rent one to test the results? There are probably some reviews one ne'er web somewhere