ypphluke From Australia, joined Jan 2013, 1 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6553 times:
Hi guys, first post in the forums of Airliners.net so do give me some constructive criticism.
Just wanted any feedback on whether or not my camera body, the Canon EOS1100D / Rebel T3 will deliver nicely crisp and clear photographs as aircraft fly low over my house near YPPH/PER on take-off and landings if the wind prevails. If I use the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens on my camera, will it deliver to this great length. A friend told me it differs on each camera type. If you have the time, any examples would mean a lot to me as this is the only lens within my budget and which I have shortlisted!
Examples like :
Many thanks in advance in those who can help!
ypphluke - Spotting from Perth Airport, Western Australia PER/YPPH
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2947 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6522 times:
The 70-300 IS USM (non-L) is a good lens for the price. It's relatively sharp between 70mm and about 220mm when stopped down and will certainly work well with your 1100D. Above about 220mm, it starts to get a little soft. It's still usable, but the softness starts to become noticeable as you zoom towards 300mm. There's loads of photos taken with it on the database if you search for them with the lens information. The focussing isn't as quick as higher spec lenses, but fast enough for the sort of photos you mention. IS works well. I still take the older version of this lens (75-300 IS USM) on my travels as it's compact and light. The 70-300 is similar, but with slightly better optics. If that's your budget, you can't go wrong with it really. If you wanted to save a little more, the 70-200 L (non-IS) isn't much more but far superior in both build and optical qualities. A 70-200mm L at full reach and cropped, will give better results than the 70-300mm at 300mm. It's worth bearing in mind but if you can't stretch your budget, the 70-300 IS USM is a good lens for the money. A few recent examples from the 75-300 IS USM;
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10617 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6509 times:
I'd call the 70-300 IS USM a decent lens. It's not bad, and it's not great. Use it between 70 and 250mm, and it's more-or-less fine (some softness at the edges, but nothing too horrible). I never used it between 250 and 300mm - it was really soft up there. So in essence, for my purposes, it was a 70-250mm lens.
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 1): If you wanted to save a little more, the 70-200 L (non-IS) isn't much more but far superior in both build and optical qualities.
In fact, if you're buying the 70-300 IS USM new, then I would recommend getting a used 70-200 F4L instead. It'll be much better (provided it's been taken care of) and about the same price.
My shots taken with the 70-300 IS USM (except for the last 2 search results...):
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6493 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6481 times:
Depends on a lot of things. Other factors such as air quality can have a huge impact. You'll notice that in winter, your pictures will seem quite a lot sharper due to the lack of haze, heat haze etc that is present in summer. I used that lens before I upgraded to the 100-400 and it performs well for the price; unless you're shooting at the 300mm end all the time; which is the case for just about all zoom lenses - it gets pretty soft.
I'd say see if you do need between 200-300mm. Otherwise the 70-200 as mentioned above would be the way to go.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3069 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6471 times:
Welcome to the forum Luke.
I will add my support to the advice above. I used the 70-200mm f4 L (non-IS) for a long time, and it is a fantastic lens for the price. I also previously had the lens you describe (though possibly the earlier version) and can say for sure that a cropped image taken at 200mm with the L lens is superior in quality to an uncropped photo at 300mm with the non-L lens.
With the hindsight I have now I would go for the excellent 70-200mm, and be confident about cropping to get those tighter shots. I wouldn't worry about the lack of IS either - with its superior optics you can open it up to a large aperture without a significant loss of quality, which enables you to get those faster shutter speeds.