# Show your love for the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS



## AnselA (Aug 17, 2012)

I love this non-L lens but I find many here dismiss it as real choice for good results. Here are some examples of the work I've done with it. Please post your shots.


----------



## CanonCollector (Aug 17, 2012)

Great shots Ansela. I have to say I am surprised. I owned the 70-200 f/4 but when I decided I wanted more reach I didn't even consider the non-L and bought the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS. I am happy with my chubby white lens but I now wonder if I could have saved many Benjamins...and still have gotten great results.


----------



## Richard8971 (Aug 17, 2012)

It's a great lens. I still use it even though I have other "L" lenses at the ready.


----------



## CanonCollector (Aug 17, 2012)

Richard WOW!


----------



## Richard8971 (Aug 17, 2012)

CanonCollector said:


> Richard WOW!



;D Thanks.

D


----------



## sjp010 (Aug 17, 2012)

One can buy this lens for $300 refurbished right now at Adorama. I took advantage of that deal - hope to have some results to share soon. So far, I'm pleasantly surprised with early results and the build quality (not L of course, but decent enough).


----------



## BobSanderson (Aug 17, 2012)

Great job Ansela. I would like to see more!
Amazing Owl Richard...


----------



## nda (Aug 17, 2012)

Yes>>> a great lens for the price, construction could be better but the glass is excellent! one of the underrated lenses in the Canon line-up!


----------



## M.ST (Aug 17, 2012)

I have many L lenses but I love the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS to. It´s a great lens.


----------



## Menace (Aug 17, 2012)

Very nice images - well done


----------



## swampler (Aug 17, 2012)

Haven't used mine since going L. Takes great photos, but focus is too slow for most of what I shoot.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 17, 2012)

great thread i have been on the lookout for a cheap one for my parents who have their first dslr a 600d most of the ones ive seen people have been asking too much


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Aug 17, 2012)

I loved this lens when I owned it, very nice IQ for what it cost.

Didn't like extending zoom, didn't like rotating focus ring.

Between this and the basic 70-200 f4L.. I don't know what I'd buy... The build on the 70-200L's, focus speed, noise and internal zoom / focus could make it worth the little extra, even with the reduced range.

All that said.. nice shots.


----------



## richard t (Aug 17, 2012)

I loved this lens, upgraded to the 70-200f4IS

shot through the fence at a cold and wet Donny




Valentino Rossi by Rich Tinsley, on Flickr





Nicky Hayden by Rich Tinsley, on Flickr


----------



## Zusje (Aug 17, 2012)

Here's a couple of shots from the archives taken with my 70-300 is, I don't use this lens anymore (prefer 70-200L is ii) and am debating whether I will sell it.


----------



## swampler (Aug 18, 2012)

Zusje said:


> Here's a couple of shots from the archives taken with my 70-300 is, I don't use this lens anymore (prefer 70-200L is ii) and am debating whether I will sell it.


I put mine on ebay twice and didn't sell either time. Will probably try again closer Christmas.


----------



## expatinasia (Aug 18, 2012)

Isn't this like in completely the wrong section of the forum? Shouldn't it be under images or lenses?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 18, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> Isn't this like in completely the wrong section of the forum? Shouldn't it be under images or lenses?



Not only that, it's also in a "Bodies" forum and it's about a lens


----------



## newbieshooter (Aug 19, 2012)

I was also looking at this lens will the Tamron version could be another consideration? Im still debating which one to get..


----------



## CanonCollector (Aug 19, 2012)

I think this thread is valuable to give readers some examples of the images that are possible with a lens that gets little notice. If you like what you see you can do further research with experts that have evaluated it. Also, sometimes it is best to shoot with it to see if it matches what you need. The price/performance/weight/size on this lens certainly merits consideration for many readers.

I think the images were smashing and I am surprised at how good and sharp the high speed sporting and bird photographs were.


----------



## BobSanderson (Aug 21, 2012)

I agree with you CanonCollector.


----------



## Tracy Pinto (Aug 21, 2012)

Great shots all around. Bob Ansela thanks for starting this posting as don't remember anything like it about his lens. We have so many good Canon choices but this is one often overlooked.

I have owned this lens for five years and I can recommend it. It packs small, is light and it is much more discreet than my white telephotos so I carry it more in the cities on my trips abroad. I find it plenty fast for focusing and only dislike trying to use the polarizer with it. I guess the fact this lens produces sharp images, has good contrast, produces natural saturation and has a very good IS system makes it a frequent option for me. I have taken it on every trip since I bought it even though I own two L lens that cover some of the same ground. It is very practical.


----------



## SiliconVoid (Aug 21, 2012)

The mid grade 70-300mm IS is a great little lens, I still use it on my backup body. I will admit however that I purchased it to serve that focal length (wildlife photography) until I could afford the 70-300mm L, which is of course in an exponentially different league.

If the 70-300mm IS were to die tomorrow I would have no reservations about purchasing another to replace it!


----------



## DJD (Aug 22, 2012)

Taken with 7D, 1/500th, f/7.1, ISO 800, 300mm. (probably cropped to about 50% of original image)


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Aug 22, 2012)

This one was taken just few days before I decided to return the Canon 70-300 in favour of the Tamron 70-300




Squirrel by alo-chhaya, on Flickr


----------



## CanonCollector (Aug 22, 2012)

DJD - perfect bird portrait. Was it handheld or with a tripod?
Bob Sanderson - Great framing and lovely portrait of the squirrel also beautiful architectural detail from Kyoto with excellent exposure.
Bob Ansela - birds, birds, birds! All wonderful images and very sharp right down to every little and colorful feather. The seal baby seal could not be cozier than napping on it's mom.


----------



## BobSanderson (Aug 23, 2012)

Thanks CC


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 23, 2012)

What about AF speed? it's slow or fast for outdoor? Thanks


----------



## DJD (Aug 23, 2012)

CC - Thanks, the finch portrait was hand held. 
The IS is pretty good. This hummingbird picture was taken hand held at 1/50, f/5.6, ISO400, 300mm (-1EV) on an XTi (400D)


----------



## Richard8971 (Aug 24, 2012)

The 70-300 IS USM is a great lens. Is it an "L" lens? No, but it doesn't have to be. I have done sharpness comparisons between the 70-200 f4L and the 70-300 IS USM at 200mm and they are both amazing. The 300 loses a _little_ detail but it is worth it for the extra reach. I will never sell mine. I still use it and will continue to do so. It is worth every penny spent. It's a great lens in the EF line-up.

Too many people out there think that unless the lens is white or comes with a "red stripe" it is not worth owning. I do not believe that. Canon has several non-"L" lenses out there that are fantastic and some are even EF-s, the HORROR!!! 

Do yourself a favor, get some 1/16' tomato red 3m stripe and put a band over the gold stripe at the end of the lens. That way no one will complain or even care to comment... 

D


----------



## swampler (Aug 24, 2012)

Have you compared the 70-200 + 1.4x TC against the 70-300. With the TC, I no longer find a use for the 70-300.



Richard8971 said:


> The 70-300 IS USM is a great lens. Is it an "L" lens? No, but it doesn't have to be. I have done sharpness comparisons between the 70-200 f4L and the 70-300 IS USM at 200mm and they are both amazing. The 300 loses a _little_ detail but it is worth it for the extra reach. I will never sell mine. I still use it and will continue to do so. It is worth every penny spent. It's a great lens in the EF line-up.
> 
> Too many people out there think that unless the lens is white or comes with a "red stripe" it is not worth owning. I do not believe that. Canon has several non-"L" lenses out there that are fantastic and some are even EF-s, the HORROR!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## BobSanderson (Aug 24, 2012)

The lesson for me is that you need to do a fair evaluation without some instant L snobbery or blindness. I love my L lenses especially the Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM, Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L and the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L (another lens that is slammed regularly here). But I also very much like my 50mm f/1.4 which does not get a fair evaluation here either. It is a real wonder.

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS should really be in the mix when you consider that its IS cousin the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is twice the price and that is without adding in the Canon Extender EF 1.4x III to match the reach. The cost of the extender alone is equal to the cost of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS.

To do the very finest professional work the L may in fact be the only option. The reviews of the L lenses would agree with this. But for the rest of us where cost is a factor that may deter us from buying other desired photo goodies then maybe the non-L is worth a real look. You can produce some beautiful images and excellent enlargements at a very reasonable cost with a non-L too.


----------



## Richard8971 (Aug 25, 2012)

swampler said:


> Have you compared the 70-200 + 1.4x TC against the 70-300. With the TC, I no longer find a use for the 70-300.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmm, why not just dump the 200 and go for the 400L prime or 600L prime? The 1.4 tele works best on the 70-200 2.8L as the 4L can loose some AF speed in darker shooting areas. You are now looking at almost 3 grand for that setup or about $2600.00 for the 70-300 f4L setup. The 70-300 IS USM is $650.00. It is a VERY affordable lens that delivers excellent quality for a third the price.

Not everyone can afford "L" lenses nor should they be pressured into thinking that the equipment that they can afford "sucks" because it is not the "best of the best". Each camera body and each lens serves a purpose and they do the job for which they were designed. 

This thread was "show your love for the 70-300", not "Hey, this lens sucks, what would you use instead?" Let's get back to the original post.

D


----------



## swampler (Aug 25, 2012)

Richard8971 said:


> This thread was "show your love for the 70-300", not "Hey, this lens sucks, what would you use instead?" Let's get back to the original post.
> 
> D


I actually like the 70-300, I got the 70-200 for sports, then with the TC, I just find that I don't use the 70-300 anymore. Since the person I responded to had both lenses, I merely asked a question. Not sure how you got "Hey, this lens sucks" from my post.


----------

