Canon 70-300 IS USM lens availability

AaronW wrote:


I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at
the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than
the variable 70-300/4-5.6 IS. The brighter f/2.8 would be much more
useful.

BTW, the short end at 70mm is not short enough, especially on 1.6x. I'd
prefer a short tele zoom, e.g., 45-135, and add another longer tele
lens.


I'm the OP about the 70-300 IS.

I do notice that having the 18-55 and 70-300
leaves a gap of about 25%. This is unfortunate.
However, since the 18-55 lens is a cheapie non-IS,
I would consider later getting a better IS type lens
that goes across the gap. In the meantime, one can
always crop the 55 a bit, though it is not exactly the
world's sharpest lens, and the number of pixels on
the 30D leaves only marginal crop room too.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald wrote:
AaronW wrote:
I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at
the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than
the variable 70-300/4-5.6 IS. The brighter f/2.8 would be much more
useful.

BTW, the short end at 70mm is not short enough, especially on 1.6x. I'd
prefer a short tele zoom, e.g., 45-135, and add another longer tele
lens.

I do notice that having the 18-55 and 70-300
leaves a gap of about 25%. This is unfortunate.
However, since the 18-55 lens is a cheapie non-IS,
I would consider later getting a better IS type lens
that goes across the gap.

It's not only the gap. E.g., there is no gap between 24-70 and 70-200,
but I would switch frequently between these two lenses. A lens
overlapping the middle range, 45-135, would be very useful.

Right now, between your 18-55 and 70-300, a good middle lens is
28-135/3.5-5.6 IS, but a 45-135 without retrofocus would be better
and/or cheaper.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:19:05 -0500, Doug McDonald
wrote:


I'm the OP about the 70-300 IS.

I do notice that having the 18-55 and 70-300
leaves a gap of about 25%. This is unfortunate.
However, since the 18-55 lens is a cheapie non-IS,
I would consider later getting a better IS type lens
that goes across the gap. In the meantime, one can
always crop the 55 a bit, though it is not exactly the
world's sharpest lens, and the number of pixels on
the 30D leaves only marginal crop room too.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald,
I initially purchased my 300D with the
same 18-55mm (28.8-88) kit lens followed shortly thereafter with the
purchase of a Canon EF 55-200mm (88-320) f/4.5-5.6 II USM & an EF 50mm
(80) f/1.8 Mk11 for low light use. The EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM
was within my budget @ the time & I suspect that I got a very good
copy of it because I was quite pleased with it's overall performance
including sharpness.

Then later on I purchased a Canon EF 100mm (160) f/2 USM lens
& soon learned just how sharp a lens could be when I used it to take a
picture of a squirrel in my yard & could clearly make out the convex
reflection of my white house in the reflection of it's eye. I was &
remain impressed with this lens & still favor it when what I am
photographing does not need a zoom lens & @ f2, it's quite fast!

Some time later I purchased my 1st "IS" lens, the Canon EF
28-135mm (44.8-216) f/3.5-5.6 IS USM which soon became my favorite
walk-about lens. However it was a bit too long for indoor group shots
unless it was a big enough room, so I purchased the Canon EF-S 17-85MM
(27.2-136) f4-5.6 IS USM soon after it was introduced. Although this
lens dose have a considerable amount of barrel distortion @ 17mm
(27.2), it was rarely ever a problem for me because I usually
photograph people & not buildings with strait lines where such
distortion can become noticeable. There are several programs
available that can easily correct this distortion in Post Production.

In short, eventually the Canon EF-S 17-85MM (27.2-136) f4-5.6
IS USM & the EF 70-300mm (112-480) f/4-5.6 IS USM became my 2 favorite
lenses for most of my photography & together they give me a total
effective equivalent of (27.2-480mm) with very little overlap. I'm
certain that there are sharper, faster & better lenses than either of
these 2 but I have to remain within my budget for now. These meet my
needs 95% of the time for what I want to do with them.

Best of luck in your future selection of a replacement for the
18-55mm kit lens. I am quite pleased with my EF-S 17-85MM (27.2-136)
f4-5.6 IS USM lens for my needs but depending upon what your needs
are, you my want/need something better.

Note to Holley: I dropped off my EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
lens to UPS late this afternoon, so now the wait for it's return
begins.

Respectfully, DHB



"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

snip
I'll be shooting this weekend and will advise if anything operational has
changed.



The repair procedure appears to have changed the operation of the lens for
the better.

It seems to focus faster, and it doesn't seem like it hunts as much when
focusing. The noise level of the IS mechanism is definitely lower. I would
recommend getting the lens repaired, whether or not you are currently having
problems.

Holley

Of course this could also be a figment of my imagination. :-)

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:45:37 -0500, "Holley"
wrote:

snip
I'll be shooting this weekend and will advise if anything operational has
changed.



The repair procedure appears to have changed the operation of the lens for
the better.

It seems to focus faster, and it doesn't seem like it hunts as much when
focusing. The noise level of the IS mechanism is definitely lower. I would
recommend getting the lens repaired, whether or not you are currently having
problems.

Holley

Of course this could also be a figment of my imagination. :-)


Not to mention that the lens does not extend on its own when pointed
down.

Well worth the 'update' IMHO...


--

Scott in Florida

AaronW wrote:
DHB wrote:
Thanks again for the information. At the moment I am hoping
Santa (me) will buy me a EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. This would be my
1st piece of "L" glass. Up till now I could not justify the "L" glass
but am now giving it serious consideration for use @ selected special
events where top optical quality may prove worth the investment.

Do you have any thoughts on this lens? Yes I know it's not
available yet but I am talking figuratively & most of my use of it
would likely be for candid photography of people, weddings, sporting
events & the like. The only thing I don't like is that it duplicates
the 1st 1/2+ of the zoom range of my 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at
the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than
the variable 70-300/4-5.6 IS. The brighter f/2.8 would be much more
useful.

BTW, the short end at 70mm is not short enough, especially on 1.6x. I'd
prefer a short tele zoom, e.g., 45-135, and add another longer tele
lens.

I have the 70-200/2.8 IS. The main problem is that it is
*HEAVY*. Carry it around for a couple of hours and you will
know it in your bones.

It is, however, a superb lens.

The f/4 IS (which is, I think, not out yet) should
be significantly lighter. If a person does mostly
daytime outdoor photography I see no reason why the
f/4 should not be amply wide.

And it should also be a superb lens.

----- Paul J. Gans

AaronW wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:
AaronW wrote:
I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at
the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than
the variable 70-300/4-5.6 IS. The brighter f/2.8 would be much more
useful.

BTW, the short end at 70mm is not short enough, especially on 1.6x. I'd
prefer a short tele zoom, e.g., 45-135, and add another longer tele
lens.

I do notice that having the 18-55 and 70-300
leaves a gap of about 25%. This is unfortunate.
However, since the 18-55 lens is a cheapie non-IS,
I would consider later getting a better IS type lens
that goes across the gap.

It's not only the gap. E.g., there is no gap between 24-70 and 70-200,
but I would switch frequently between these two lenses. A lens
overlapping the middle range, 45-135, would be very useful.

Right now, between your 18-55 and 70-300, a good middle lens is
28-135/3.5-5.6 IS, but a 45-135 without retrofocus would be better
and/or cheaper.

I want a 24-85mm f/4 from Canon. 70 is too short for me as
an everyday lens. And 45 is too long. Unless of course I
had a full-frame body which I don't...

---- Paul J. Gans

Paul J Gans wrote:
AaronW wrote:
DHB wrote:
Thanks again for the information. At the moment I am hoping
Santa (me) will buy me a EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. This would be my
1st piece of "L" glass. Up till now I could not justify the "L" glass
but am now giving it serious consideration for use @ selected special
events where top optical quality may prove worth the investment.

Do you have any thoughts on this lens? Yes I know it's not
available yet but I am talking figuratively & most of my use of it
would likely be for candid photography of people, weddings, sporting
events & the like. The only thing I don't like is that it duplicates
the 1st 1/2+ of the zoom range of my 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at
the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than
the variable 70-300/4-5.6 IS. The brighter f/2.8 would be much more
useful.

BTW, the short end at 70mm is not short enough, especially on 1.6x. I'd
prefer a short tele zoom, e.g., 45-135, and add another longer tele
lens.

I have the 70-200/2.8 IS. The main problem is that it is
*HEAVY*. Carry it around for a couple of hours and you will
know it in your bones.

It is, however, a superb lens.

The f/4 IS (which is, I think, not out yet) should
be significantly lighter.

I understand. I think the f/4 lens is for people who want to save
weight, but not necessarily those who want to save money.

If a person does mostly
daytime outdoor photography I see no reason why the
f/4 should not be amply wide.

DoF, and the limit to outdoor daylight may be too restrictive.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

Paul J Gans wrote:
AaronW wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:
AaronW wrote:
I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at
the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than
the variable 70-300/4-5.6 IS. The brighter f/2.8 would be much more
useful.

BTW, the short end at 70mm is not short enough, especially on 1.6x. I'd
prefer a short tele zoom, e.g., 45-135, and add another longer tele
lens.

I do notice that having the 18-55 and 70-300
leaves a gap of about 25%. This is unfortunate.
However, since the 18-55 lens is a cheapie non-IS,
I would consider later getting a better IS type lens
that goes across the gap.

It's not only the gap. E.g., there is no gap between 24-70 and 70-200,
but I would switch frequently between these two lenses. A lens
overlapping the middle range, 45-135, would be very useful.

Right now, between your 18-55 and 70-300, a good middle lens is
28-135/3.5-5.6 IS, but a 45-135 without retrofocus would be better
and/or cheaper.

I want a 24-85mm f/4 from Canon.

Do you mean f/2.8?

70 is too short for me as
an everyday lens. And 45 is too long. Unless of course I
had a full-frame body which I don't...

For EF-S, I want a 28-85 without retrofocus.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

AaronW wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
AaronW wrote:
DHB wrote:
Thanks again for the information. At the moment I am hoping
Santa (me) will buy me a EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. This would be my
1st piece of "L" glass. Up till now I could not justify the "L" glass
but am now giving it serious consideration for use @ selected special
events where top optical quality may prove worth the investment.

Do you have any thoughts on this lens? Yes I know it's not
available yet but I am talking figuratively & most of my use of it
would likely be for candid photography of people, weddings, sporting
events & the like. The only thing I don't like is that it duplicates
the 1st 1/2+ of the zoom range of my 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at
the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than
the variable 70-300/4-5.6 IS. The brighter f/2.8 would be much more
useful.

BTW, the short end at 70mm is not short enough, especially on 1.6x. I'd
prefer a short tele zoom, e.g., 45-135, and add another longer tele
lens.

I have the 70-200/2.8 IS. The main problem is that it is
*HEAVY*. Carry it around for a couple of hours and you will
know it in your bones.

It is, however, a superb lens.

The f/4 IS (which is, I think, not out yet) should
be significantly lighter.

I understand. I think the f/4 lens is for people who want to save
weight, but not necessarily those who want to save money.

Yes, though the f/4 ought to be a good bit cheaper than the
f/2.8.

If a person does mostly
daytime outdoor photography I see no reason why the
f/4 should not be amply wide.

DoF, and the limit to outdoor daylight may be too restrictive.

Yes. In the end it all depends on the intended use and the
photographer. Only *you* can make the final decision.

---- Paul J. Gans