Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 70-300mm Is Or Non-IS Lense?  
User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5163 posts, RR: 33
Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6047 times:

I just recently bought a conon 350D, and am now looking at aquiring a decent lense for the camera. At the homent I have two choices:

70-300mm IS USM £369
75-300mm USM £174

Is there much benefit to getting the Image Stabalising lense, especially for use with aviation photography? Its fair bit extra, and im wondering if its worth it?


That'll teach you
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6044 times:

If you're thinking of buying the IS lens for £379, why not spend £75 more and go for the 70-200 f/4. Much better piece of glass.

Ivan


User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6026 times:

Quoting Fly747 (Reply 1):
70-200 f/4.

IIRC it's one without IS the 70-200 f/4 IS is more expensive.

I have the 70-300 IS USM and thinks the IS is worth the money, don't expect wonders but I liked it in tricky light conditions.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Georg Noack



taken at ISO 200, F4,5, 120mm, 1/30s. whilst the non IS Spotters were unlucky that moment.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Georg Noack



taken at ISO 200, F8, 70mm, 1/250s


And, the 70-300 has a better range, I would buy a 70-200 too if I would'nt need the long end.

georg

[Edited 2007-04-02 19:28:05]

User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6017 times:

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 2):
And, the 70-300 has a better range, I would buy a 70-200 too if I would'nt need the long end.

It has more reach, but its performance deteriorates after the 200mm mark. I used to shoot with the non USM version and never went past 200 mm because it just wasn't sharp enough.

Ivan


User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6002 times:

Quoting Fly747 (Reply 3):
I used to shoot with the non USM

You talk about a different lens. There's the 70-300 IS USM only one version and there are numerous versions of the 75-300 including/excluding IS and with different USM (I/II/III).

georg


User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5975 times:

Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 4):
You talk about a different lens.

Sorry about that, I didn't read it properly, yes I was talking about the 75-300. Still I'd prefer the 70-200 f/4 to the other one. Depends on the guys needs of course.

Ivan


User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5928 times:

Quoting Nighthawk (Thread starter):
70-300mm IS USM £369
75-300mm USM £174

Is there much benefit to getting the Image Stabalising lense, especially for use with aviation photography? Its fair bit extra, and im wondering if its worth it?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082207canonlenses.asp

It basically says buy the IS version... Its got better glass, the IS and great AF. It will be a good aviation lens, much better beyond the 200mm mark of the 75-300mm.



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5920 times:

I used to own a 75-300 USM mk. III and it was a great lens for the money - though as Ivan says it was very soft and the colours very muddy above about 220mm. I believe the IS version is of a little better quality and, obviously, has the benefits of IS. Myself I don't need IS because I refuse to shoot in crappy conditions, so my 70-200 F4 L does me just fine. I agree totally with Ivan - spend the extra and get the 70-200 F4 L. OK, you lose 100mm (never been that big an issue for me) and IS but the quality of image this lens delivers is second to none. You are getting a much better lens for your money; and besides, there are other ways of improving your images in low light rather than using IS.

Karl


User currently offlineRichPhitzwell From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5794 times:

Im also looking for a new Canon lens and Ive been loking at:

EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Any thoughts? Is there a better choice?

Im somewhat worried about low light situations such as at dusk.

Thanks,


User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5792 times:

Quoting RichPhitzwell (Reply 8):
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Any thoughts? Is there a better choice?

Can't go wrong with that choice, probably the most popular among Canon shooters.

Ivan


User currently offlineDan330 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 439 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5718 times:

I bought the 70-300mm IS a few years ago, while a friend had the 70-200mm f4 non-IS. Given the choice again I would definately side with the 70-200mm f4. OK no IS, but its an L lens and the quality over the 70-300mm IS is massive.
Its also compatable with the 1.4x converter if you want the extra reach, full autofocus and excellent quality still.

As for the 100-400mm, that the one I use now and wouldn't change it for anything!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
New Canon 70-300mm Is With Do Elements posted Sun Feb 1 2004 07:21:31 by Hkg_clk
Digital SLR Newbie, Need Some Advice 70-300mm Is posted Fri Jan 27 2006 22:09:29 by Boeing Nut
Is Canon 75-300mm Is That Much Better? posted Sun Jun 5 2005 19:04:54 by Fly747
Anyone Shoot Canon 70-200 Is W/2x? posted Wed Feb 12 2003 23:40:31 by Planedoctor
Canon 70-200 2.8 Is New? posted Tue Sep 4 2001 01:28:41 by Blackened
Canon 70-300mm posted Tue Mar 28 2006 17:33:23 by Deicingphil
Canon 70-200L (+ 2X) Or 70-400L posted Wed Aug 27 2003 16:52:21 by Glennstewart
Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM Review Wanted posted Thu Apr 6 2006 12:01:46 by Deaphen
New Canon EF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Is USM posted Wed Oct 19 2005 00:12:17 by TRVYYZ
Lense Thoughts: Canon EF 100-400mm F/2.8L Is USM posted Thu Jun 29 2006 21:56:02 by Aero145