TRVYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1311 posts, RR: 11 Posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4265 times:
This is the refined version of the old 75-300mm IS lens, one of A.net's popular lenses.
FM has shown some good reviews on it. I feel tempted to buy this as I cannot afford the L lens and I would like the "IS" factor. It has an additional IS mode also(compared to its older model). It costs almost the same (slightly less) as 70-200mm F/4L. I would like to know how much would I be missing if I opted this Non "L" "IS" over the F/4L.
I searched A.net database for this lens and found no match. Any body on A.net happen to use it, please describe your experience.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, RR: 16 Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4223 times:
Hi Santhosh,
I use the 70-300mm DO IS lens if that is the one you're talking about.
If it is, then the results are certainly far better than the other two lenses I use, but not as good as 'L' glass. Very small and compact and generally I have no complaints.
F9Widebody From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1604 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4181 times:
Read Justin Wood's (Jkw777) thread about his new lens. The new 70-300 comes up and the general consensus is spend the slight extra to get the 70-200. L glass makes a HUGE difference compared to the difference between two non L lenses.
TRVYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1311 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4152 times:
Quoting F9Widebody (Reply 3): The new 70-300 comes up and the general consensus is spend the slight extra to get the 70-200 L.
In the discussions,the thread was started by DAVIDYYC, although he mentioned about 70-300mm IS, all the replies and sample photos were about 75-300mm IS.
Gmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2158 posts, RR: 22 Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4006 times:
Wow, That lense looks pretty good, I will have to wait and see if its any good, I wonder what Henry's will give me for my 75-300 USM III? I am looking to get the 70-200L IS 2.8 but I don't think I want to fork over $2500 plus CDN taxes for it. As well, by the time i get a filter for the damn thing i will be over $3000... I may get all of what I am looking for in this new lense? Any word on the price?
Gmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2158 posts, RR: 22 Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3920 times:
Is it worth it? I think guys are happy with the IS on the 75-300? For the same price you can get the 70-200L F4? which is a better lens... obviously the -300mm is longer but for what we use these lenses for, on a more than often basis, is it worth losing -100mm to gain one stop?
Lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3446 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3902 times:
This lens was recently released along with the 24-105mm L. First samples look very promising. All 75-300mm Canon lenses were a bit soft at the tele end but many people that have used this lens say that its better than the previous model for image quality and better IS.
That's the real question. The diference between this and its oder model is
1) It's got a UD lens element
2) Second IS mode for Panning.
3) Circular Aperture (I don't know if the other one was different, this I am writing from the Canon Catalog I got)
4) 70mm instaed of 75mm at the lower end.
Advantage over F/4 L is
1) IS allowing shot without blur at 1/60secs at 300mm and also panning.
Ofcourse Quality is not to be "L" level, but wait to see some actual pics from Anetters.
The question is whether Picture and quality is closer to 75-300mm IS(old model) or the 70-200F/4L.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1311 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1604 posts, 
It seems like quite an attractive buy.
From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3446 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
