Canon 70-300mm IS USM or other brand/type?

I've recently bought a Canon EOS-350D camera body and a Sigma 17-70mm
f/2.8-4.5, so an additional zoom would probably be a nice addition to
my setup.
I take a lot of pictures while traveling so portability is important. I
don't have unlimited funds either, but do want quality (don't we all)
as opposed to buying the very cheapest available, only to buy something
more expensive shortly thereafter to rectify the disappointment.

So I've been looking at the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I think the
image stabilizer might be useful for walk-around situations, even
though I'll see if I can bring along a simple tripod on my trip.

People argue that I would be better off with a Canon 70-200mm f/4L
(because of the "L" optics I asume, or hype perhaps), but it doesn't
have IS (which I believe is handy when traveling; not dedicated
photography trips, but taking pictures in addition to being on
holiday), and besides it costs more than the 70-300mm.
Another things is that the white color would attract more attention
than an "anonymous" black lens. I don't want to look like a press
photographer/paparazzi ;-)
Like I said, I do want good results, but I'm currently only a keen
enthusiast without unlimited funds, so would I really *need* a 70-200mm
"L" lens? Would I notice a lot of difference in my photos from the
70-300 (non-"L")?

There is however a downside to the 70-300mm. I've heard that Canon has
reported problems with some lenses and they have as yet to figure out
what to do with the problem. I don't know the exact details, but I have
a feeling I should wait a little longer to hear what Canon concludes
with.

But assuming that Canon will find a solution to the problem, is the
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM a good lens and worth getting for my use?
How about 3rd party lenses such as Sigma and Tokina?

On 15 Jun 2006 01:44:23 -0700, "Arild P." wrote:

I've recently bought a Canon EOS-350D camera body and a Sigma 17-70mm
f/2.8-4.5, so an additional zoom would probably be a nice addition to
my setup.
I take a lot of pictures while traveling so portability is important. I
don't have unlimited funds either, but do want quality (don't we all)
as opposed to buying the very cheapest available, only to buy something
more expensive shortly thereafter to rectify the disappointment.

So I've been looking at the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I think the
image stabilizer might be useful for walk-around situations, even
though I'll see if I can bring along a simple tripod on my trip.

People argue that I would be better off with a Canon 70-200mm f/4L
(because of the "L" optics I asume, or hype perhaps), but it doesn't
have IS (which I believe is handy when traveling; not dedicated
photography trips, but taking pictures in addition to being on
holiday), and besides it costs more than the 70-300mm.
Another things is that the white color would attract more attention
than an "anonymous" black lens. I don't want to look like a press
photographer/paparazzi ;-)
Like I said, I do want good results, but I'm currently only a keen
enthusiast without unlimited funds, so would I really *need* a 70-200mm
"L" lens? Would I notice a lot of difference in my photos from the
70-300 (non-"L")?

There is however a downside to the 70-300mm. I've heard that Canon has
reported problems with some lenses and they have as yet to figure out
what to do with the problem. I don't know the exact details, but I have
a feeling I should wait a little longer to hear what Canon concludes
with.

But assuming that Canon will find a solution to the problem, is the
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM a good lens and worth getting for my use?
How about 3rd party lenses such as Sigma and Tokina?

I have the Canon 70-300. It is a nice lens. There are a couple of
'problems' with it.

You can't over rule the focus in real time unless you switch to MF.

When you point the camera down, the lens extends on its own accord.

Not really big 'problems'.

Scott in Florida wrote:

I have the Canon 70-300. It is a nice lens. There are a couple of
'problems' with it.

You can't over rule the focus in real time unless you switch to MF.

When you point the camera down, the lens extends on its own accord.

Not really big 'problems'.

I agree. They don't sound like "problems" to me.
But the issues that have been brought to Canon's attention do (lowered
resolution when tilted sideways (portrait) I think). Have you had any
such problems?

The IS sound appealing to me when travlling around, and I assume it
works well, but are you happy with the results? Does it take good,
clear photos?
I have a feeling the "L" lenses are pretty much hyped up. No doubt
they're essential gear for professionals, but a lot of fans seem to say
that "L" is the *only* way to go if you want good results. So that's
what causes my doubts; becoming unsure if I should fork in the extra,
hard earned cash for a 70-200mm while losing out on an additional
100mm, or paying less, getting IS and 100mm extra.

Arild P. wrote:
I've recently bought a Canon EOS-350D camera body and a Sigma
17-70mm
f/2.8-4.5, so an additional zoom would probably be a nice addition
to
my setup.
I take a lot of pictures while traveling so portability is
important.
I don't have unlimited funds either, but do want quality (don't we
all) as opposed to buying the very cheapest available, only to buy
something more expensive shortly thereafter to rectify the
disappointment.

Snap


There is however a downside to the 70-300mm. I've heard that Canon
has
reported problems with some lenses and they have as yet to figure
out
what to do with the problem. I don't know the exact details, but I
have a feeling I should wait a little longer to hear what Canon
concludes with.

But assuming that Canon will find a solution to the problem, is the
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM a good lens and worth getting for my use?
How about 3rd party lenses such as Sigma and Tokina?

I'm not sure the 'problem' lens is the DO IS. I have no experience
with the other 70-300 that may be the one you are considering. I
wouldn't.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=11922

This is from the EF-S 70-300 DO IS ; looks good to me:
http://static.flickr.com/29/48793364_c4768eba9c_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/31/46275144_c60c2f28ea_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/29/50562063_223bd4d8cf_o.jpg

Several early images in this 20D demo/test album:
http://www.fototime.com/inv/9407D6A7CECE8BF

I like that lens. I have a 70-200 2.8L that produces pictures clearly
superior in similar circumstances, but the difference is not
worthwhile in most day-to-day applications.

All may be off-point if it's the cheaper one you are looking at. I've
read that it is actually quite good for most uses, but not in the same
league as the others I've mentioned.

--
Frank ess

Frank ess wrote:
Arild P. wrote:
I've recently bought a Canon EOS-350D camera body and a Sigma
17-70mm
f/2.8-4.5, so an additional zoom would probably be a nice addition
to
my setup.
I take a lot of pictures while traveling so portability is
important.
I don't have unlimited funds either, but do want quality (don't we
all) as opposed to buying the very cheapest available, only to buy
something more expensive shortly thereafter to rectify the
disappointment.

Snap


There is however a downside to the 70-300mm. I've heard that Canon
has
reported problems with some lenses and they have as yet to figure
out
what to do with the problem. I don't know the exact details, but I
have a feeling I should wait a little longer to hear what Canon
concludes with.

But assuming that Canon will find a solution to the problem, is the
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM a good lens and worth getting for my use?
How about 3rd party lenses such as Sigma and Tokina?

I'm not sure the 'problem' lens is the DO IS. I have no experience
with the other 70-300 that may be the one you are considering. I
wouldn't.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=11922

This is from the EF-S 70-300 DO IS ; looks good to me:

------ Absolutely not EF-S OOPS!

http://static.flickr.com/29/48793364_c4768eba9c_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/31/46275144_c60c2f28ea_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/29/50562063_223bd4d8cf_o.jpg

Several early images in this 20D demo/test album:
http://www.fototime.com/inv/9407D6A7CECE8BF

I like that lens. I have a 70-200 2.8L that produces pictures
clearly
superior in similar circumstances, but the difference is not
worthwhile in most day-to-day applications.

All may be off-point if it's the cheaper one you are looking at.
I've
read that it is actually quite good for most uses, but not in the
same
league as the others I've mentioned.

Arild P. wrote:
I've recently bought a Canon EOS-350D camera body and a Sigma 17-70mm
f/2.8-4.5, so an additional zoom would probably be a nice addition to
my setup.
I take a lot of pictures while traveling so portability is important. I
don't have unlimited funds either, but do want quality (don't we all)
as opposed to buying the very cheapest available, only to buy something
more expensive shortly thereafter to rectify the disappointment.

So I've been looking at the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I think the
image stabilizer might be useful for walk-around situations, even
though I'll see if I can bring along a simple tripod on my trip.

People argue that I would be better off with a Canon 70-200mm f/4L
(because of the "L" optics I asume, or hype perhaps), but it doesn't
have IS (which I believe is handy when traveling; not dedicated
photography trips, but taking pictures in addition to being on
holiday), and besides it costs more than the 70-300mm.
Another things is that the white color would attract more attention
than an "anonymous" black lens. I don't want to look like a press
photographer/paparazzi ;-)
Like I said, I do want good results, but I'm currently only a keen
enthusiast without unlimited funds, so would I really *need* a 70-200mm
"L" lens? Would I notice a lot of difference in my photos from the
70-300 (non-"L")?

There is however a downside to the 70-300mm. I've heard that Canon has
reported problems with some lenses and they have as yet to figure out
what to do with the problem. I don't know the exact details, but I have
a feeling I should wait a little longer to hear what Canon concludes
with.

But assuming that Canon will find a solution to the problem, is the
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM a good lens and worth getting for my use?
How about 3rd party lenses such as Sigma and Tokina?

All those 70-300mm lenses are pretty "modest" when it comes to
performance,
so whichever you pick will give you about the same picture quality,
which is to say
not very good.

On 15 Jun 2006 17:14:14 -0700, "Arild P." wrote:

Scott in Florida wrote:

I have the Canon 70-300. It is a nice lens. There are a couple of
'problems' with it.

You can't over rule the focus in real time unless you switch to MF.

When you point the camera down, the lens extends on its own accord.

Not really big 'problems'.

I agree. They don't sound like "problems" to me.
But the issues that have been brought to Canon's attention do (lowered
resolution when tilted sideways (portrait) I think). Have you had any
such problems

No I have not had any problems with the lens.

So far I have not noticed problems with portrait mode.


The IS sound appealing to me when travlling around, and I assume it
works well, but are you happy with the results? Does it take good,
clear photos?

Yes it takes excellent pictures.

The IS works well.

Every once in awhile the IS is a bit slow at 300mm, but I can live
with that.

I have a feeling the "L" lenses are pretty much hyped up. No doubt
they're essential gear for professionals, but a lot of fans seem to say
that "L" is the *only* way to go if you want good results. So that's
what causes my doubts; becoming unsure if I should fork in the extra,
hard earned cash for a 70-200mm while losing out on an additional
100mm, or paying less, getting IS and 100mm extra.

I have the 24-105 L lens. It is excellent, at a price.

The 100 - 300 does a great job, also.

No hype about "L" lenses, they are better... period. I had a 75-300 IS and
the 70-200 f4 L is better in all respects except weight (heavier) and lenght
(longer). The 70-300 IS (non DO) is supposed to be better than the lens I
had (75-300 IS) but it surely will not be better than the 70-200 f4 L. IS
works very well when the subject is motionless so for travelling pictures
the image stabilisation may not offer much help. I travelled with a 75-300
IS but now my travelling tele zoom is a 70-200 f4 L along with a 1.4X
teleconverter which gives me almost the same range with better quality.
Sure it's more expensive, but well worth the investment. Buying cheap is
always more expensive in the end, if I had bought this combo from the getgo
I would be ahead dollar wise and picture quality wise. The faster focussing
of the "L" lens alone may be the factor letting you get a good shot rather
than a blurry one, IS or no IS.

Jean



"Arild P." a écrit dans le message de
oups.com...
Scott in Florida wrote:

I have the Canon 70-300. It is a nice lens. There are a couple of
'problems' with it.

You can't over rule the focus in real time unless you switch to MF.

When you point the camera down, the lens extends on its own accord.

Not really big 'problems'.

I agree. They don't sound like "problems" to me.
But the issues that have been brought to Canon's attention do (lowered
resolution when tilted sideways (portrait) I think). Have you had any
such problems?

The IS sound appealing to me when travlling around, and I assume it
works well, but are you happy with the results? Does it take good,
clear photos?
I have a feeling the "L" lenses are pretty much hyped up. No doubt
they're essential gear for professionals, but a lot of fans seem to say
that "L" is the *only* way to go if you want good results. So that's
what causes my doubts; becoming unsure if I should fork in the extra,
hard earned cash for a 70-200mm while losing out on an additional
100mm, or paying less, getting IS and 100mm extra.

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:15:26 -0400, Bill wrote:

Arild P. wrote:

I've recently bought a Canon EOS-350D camera body and a Sigma 17-70mm
f/2.8-4.5, so an additional zoom would probably be a nice addition to
my setup.
I take a lot of pictures while traveling so portability is important. I
don't have unlimited funds either, but do want quality (don't we all)
as opposed to buying the very cheapest available, only to buy something
more expensive shortly thereafter to rectify the disappointment.

So I've been looking at the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I think the
image stabilizer might be useful for walk-around situations, even
though I'll see if I can bring along a simple tripod on my trip.

The IS feature can be handy...

People argue that I would be better off with a Canon 70-200mm f/4L
(because of the "L" optics I asume, or hype perhaps),

Definitely not hype.

I have the 70-200 f/4 L on the same camera body and it's fantastic.
Sharpness and contrast is among the best available. In fact, my f/4 is
sharper than my friends f/2.8 IS version, likely because the IS optics
reduce image quality just a tad, yet it's 1/3 the price.

but it doesn't
have IS (which I believe is handy when traveling; not dedicated
photography trips, but taking pictures in addition to being on
holiday), and besides it costs more than the 70-300mm.

The difference in cost is well worth the improvement in image quality.

Another things is that the white color would attract more attention
than an "anonymous" black lens. I don't want to look like a press
photographer/paparazzi ;-)

I used to be concerned with that, but only people who have any knowledge
of cameras pay any attention.

Like I said, I do want good results, but I'm currently only a keen
enthusiast without unlimited funds, so would I really *need* a 70-200mm
"L" lens? Would I notice a lot of difference in my photos from the
70-300 (non-"L")?

Depends on your photos. If all you want to do is make 4x6 snapshots,
then you may be better off with the 70-300 IS.

But if you want to make large prints to display, and show the digital
images on your computer or a website at large sizes, then you'll
definitely see the difference.

There is however a downside to the 70-300mm. I've heard that Canon has
reported problems with some lenses and they have as yet to figure out
what to do with the problem. I don't know the exact details,

Canon has confirmed an image quality issue when the lense is rotated 90
degrees. Apparently the IS optics do not work 100% in portrait mode.

But assuming that Canon will find a solution to the problem, is the
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM a good lens and worth getting for my use?

The 70-300 is not that sharp when used wide open. You have to stop down
to f/8 to get good sharpness out of it. The lense gets even softer when
you zoom past 200mm.

So how do you pronounce "lense"? Is it the same as "lens"? Or maybe
"Lensy"?

George

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

writes:

So how do you pronounce "lense"? Is it the same as "lens"? Or maybe
"Lensy"?

Both spellings are considered correct.

--
Måns Rullgård