Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM - Question

[mr.mike]

Just took advantage of an opportunity to buy a Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM lens. As a rule I'm not big on telephoto lenses, but thought I'd gamble on this one. Wondering if anyone's had a good, bad or neutral experience with this lens? Looking forward to hearing from you.
Mike

 

[Soocom1]

Which version?


Canon EF 70-300mm lens - Wikipedia

 

[mr.mike]

Which version?

First version, not the II

 

[Soocom1]

If your talking about the regular "kit lens" that is around $300 or less (if used) then its adequate.

Nothing special to write home about, but in the hands of someone either inexperienced or experienced and knows the nuances, it'll be fine.

I have shot a many images with mine and they are clear and crisp.

Just not a high end performer like the L series or the DO.

 

[mr.mike]

If your talking about the regular "kit lens" that is around $300 or less (if used) then its adequate.

Nothing special to write home about, but in the hands of someone either inexperienced or experienced and knows the nuances, it'll be fine.

I have shot a many images with mine and they are clear and crisp.

Just not a high end performer like the L series or the DO.

Won't be using it much, but for the price I paid, thought it might come in handy once in a while. Don't own an L lens and don't anticipate buying one anytime soon. In my case, the L would stand for "Lonely", my wife would leave me if I spent that kind of money on a lens.

 

[Soocom1]

If your talking about the regular "kit lens" that is around $300 or less (if used) then its adequate.

Nothing special to write home about, but in the hands of someone either inexperienced or experienced and knows the nuances, it'll be fine.

I have shot a many images with mine and they are clear and crisp.

Just not a high end performer like the L series or the DO.

Won't be using it much, but for the price I paid, thought it might come in handy once in a while.

The lens has been widely admonished for its low end performance.
But like any kind of glass and especially the IS makes is superior to lenses made without IS.
But the contrast isn't in the L series range and IQ is average.
its not bad as something to use for the long range pics, but any lens regardless of reputation can perform in the right hands.

 

[Soocom1]

FYI... I have had one for about 6 years, and after experimenting, have found it to work well for telephoto macro shots.

This is a concept that is a bit advanced and why I am not getting rid of mine.

 

[mr.mike]

FYI... I have had one for about 6 years, and after experimenting, have found it to work well for telephoto macro shots.

This is a concept that is a bit advanced and why I am not getting rid of mine.

Thank you for your input.

 

[Mike Drone]

Congrats on your new lens =]

 

[photoflyer]

I purchased the Mark II version for around $500. It has an digital readout...I think you have the Mark I version of this lens.

If so, I also ended up with the Mark I version for a time but did not use it much and gave it to a cousin...but not because there was anything wrong with it. It was redundant.

By comparison I have some similar L glass but got this for more risky endeavours. Honestly, the Mark II version has been a very good value.

I didn't use the Mark I version much but I recall the AF was slower and IS not as good but that is to be expected from a predessor.

If you got it for a good price I think you have a fine lens and should get some great results with it.

 

[mr.mike]

Congrats on your new lens =]

Thank you........................