Happy Mother's Day! Happy Father's Day! Happy Graduation! Photo.net has great photography gift ideas for the Mom, Dad, or Grad in your life. Shop for camera bags, lenses, DSLRs, and more...
Clubs, bars, and small venues are the places where most concert and live music photographers get their start, the reason being that there are fewer restrictions since the performers are less likely to...
In September of 1995, Canon introduced a revolutionary new lens, the EF
75-300/4-5.6 IS USM. The revolutionary aspect of this lens was the incorporation
of an optical image stabilizer system which allowed the lens to be hand held at
shutter speeds two stops slower than could be done with a conventional lens.
Optically the EF 75-300/4-5.6 was very good at the wide end, but became a little
soft at 300mm, especially when used wide open. In fact the lens wasn't bad - I've
actually used one for the last few years - but at 300mm it paid to shoot at f8
and tweak up the resulting image in PhotoShop. The EF 75-300/4-5.6 IS USM was
reviewed here on photo.net in February 2003:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/75-300IS/
Then in June of 2004 Canon introduced a somewhat similar lens, but this time
using diffractive optics (DO). The result was significantly better performance at
300mm in terms of sharpness, though some users reported optical effects from the
diffractive optics could cause undesirable image effects under some
circumstances. The EF 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS was smaller, but heavier than the EF
75-300/4-5.6IS USM and it also used a true ring USM motor with full time manual
focus and a dual mode IS system which allows horizontal panning. The EF
70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM was reviewed here in June 2004:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/
The most recent incarnation of the original IS lens, the Canon EF 70-300mm
f/4-5.6 IS USM was introduced in October 2005. While being physically very
similar to the original lens (within a few mm in size and a few gm in weight),
there were some optical and mechanical differences. The EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM is
5mm wider at the wide end, uses a single UD glass element, and has a revised AF
system (though it still uses a micro USM motor rather than a ring USM). It also
has a zoom lock at the 70mm position to prevent "zoom creep" while the lens is
being carried and it has a dual mode 3rd generation IS system which allows
horizontal panning.
Where to Buy
Photo.net's partners have the Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM
available for purchase. Their prices are fair and you help to support
photo.net.
Here's a short summary of the specifications of these three lenses:
Lens
75-300/4-5.6
IS USM
70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS
USM
70-300/4-5.6
IS USM
Introduced
September 1995
June 2004
October 2005
Original Price
88,000 yen
174,000 yen
(w/case and hood)
88,000 yen
Approx price as of October
2005
$450
(discontinued)
$1150
$650
Motor
Micro USM
Ring USM
MicroUSM
IS panning mode
No
Yes
Yes
Full Time Manual Focus
No
Yes
No
Lens Construction (group)
10
12
10
Lens Construction
(element)
15
18
15
No. of Diaphragm Blades
8
6
8
Minimum Aperture
32-45
32-40
32-45
Closest Focusing Distance
(m)
1.5
1.4
1.5
Maximum Magnification (x)
0.25
0.19
0.26
Filter Diameter (mm)
58
58
58
Maximum Diameter x Length
(mm)
78.5 x 138.2
82.4 x 99.9
76.5 x 142.8
Weight (g)
650
720
630
EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM Performance
I've been working with the new lens for about a week now and here's my take on
it so far.
Autofocus
The AF is certainly faster than that on the original EF 75-300/4-5.6 IS USM. I
measured a time of approximately 0.65 seconds for the lens to go from infinity
focus to closest focus. This compares to 0.9 seconds for the original lens. The
turnaround time is faster too, i.e. if the lens goes from infinity to close focus
and doesn't find focus, it will pause and then go from close focus back to
infinity. The cycle time for the new lens is 1.6 seconds, while the old lens took
2.6 seconds.
Manual Focus
The manual focus feel of the new lens is essentially the same as the original
lens, i.e. sloppy and undamped. This isn't a lens you'd want to use manual focus
with unless you had to. Fortunately, autofocus seems fast and accurate, so
resorting to MF isn't something that will be required often.
Image Stabilization
Canon claim that the new IS system gives an extra stop of "handholdability".
This is very difficult to measure since when handholding a lens with IS there is
a certain probability of sharpness, i.e. at the longest shutter speeds not every
shot will be equally sharp. However I can say that visually (i.e. looking through
the lens), the IS system does seem more effective and in practice when shooting
in the 1/60-1/90s shutter speed range at 300mm, the new lens gave a somewhat
greater percentage of sharp shots than the original lens, so Canon have certainly
improved the IS. Is it a full stop better? Maybe. As I said it's something that's
quite difficult to quantify. However there's zero doubt that it works! Below are
6 shots taken at 1/125s, 3 with IS on and 3 with IS off.
Sharpness
The original lens was very sharp at 70mm (as is the new lens), but became
softer when zoomed to 300mm and shot wide open. I typically tried to shoot at f8
if I was zoomed out to 300mm. The performance of the new lens is improved at
300mm. Both sharpness and contrast are increased and it's possible to shoot wide
open at 300mm and get good results. It's not as good as a 300/4L, but then nobody
could reasonably expect it to be. Canon's published MTF data suggests that it
should be as sharp as the more expensive 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO (diffractive optics)
lens and I can believe that - though I did not have a DO lens available for a
side by side comparison so I can't say for sure.
Below are 100% crops taken from the center of images shot using and EOS 20D
wide open at 300mm.
Contrast and Flare
Under normal conditions contrast seems a little higher with the new lens.
Again this is something that's hard to quantify, but qualitatively, I think it's
better. Flare also seems slightly better controlled, although like almost any
lens, and certainly any consumer lens, if you have the front element in direct
sunlight, you will have flare and contrast problems. A lens shade (or a suitably
positioned hand or hat) is the only effective way of reducing flare under those
circumstances as dramatically shown below:
Chromatic Aberration
CA (chromatic aberration) is still visible in the new lens, just as it was in
the original, but the magnitude and intensity of the colored fringes is slightly
lower. Again, not as good as a 300/4L, but again, you wouldn't expect it to
be.
Build Quality
Build quality is similar to that of the original lens. It's a consumer zoom,
not an "L" series lens. That's not to say that it's flimsy, but there is some
barrel wobble when extended to 300mm. The addition of the zoom lock at 70mm is
useful, since the lens will extend to the 300mm position when carried on a camera
and pointing downwards.
Overall Conclusions
The new EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM is a better lens than the original EF
75-300/4-5.6 IS USM, as it should be since it costs at least $200 more. $650
isn't cheap, and in fact it's more expensive than the EF 70-200/4L. The original
lens has been discontinued, so the decision as to which is the better value of
the two is now moot. Maybe you can still find a new one, but it's getting tough.
Used ones sell on Ebay for around $400. I'd say the new lens at $650 is probably
better value than the DO lens at $1150, as long as you can live without a silent
ring USM motor and full time manual focus and don't mind the extra 1.5" in
length. If you shoot at 300mm a lot, I'd say pay the price for the EF
70-300/4-5.6 IS USM. If you shoot most of the time at the shorter end, you can
save $250 or so by getting the original lens used (or maybe you could find a new
one if you're quick), so if funds are tight that's not an unreasonable option. I
can tell you that I have upgraded to the new lens (anyone who wants to buy my
75-300IS...email me!).
Whether the EF 70-200/4 L? USM ($600) or the EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM ($650) is
the better buy depends a lot on your application. If you're shooting from a
tripod and don't need to zoom to 300mm, the EF 70-200/4L is a very good buy. You
can add a Canon 1.4x TC to get to 280mm, though it takes takes time to add and
costs around $300. On the other hand if you're shooting handheld and need the
ability to easily zoom from 70 to 300mm without stoping to add a TC, then I think
the EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM might well turn out to be the better choice.
Where to Buy
Photo.net's partners have the Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM
available for purchase. Their prices are fair and you help to support
photo.net.
I've had this lens for a few weeks now, and I am very happy with it (bear in mind, though, that I am moving up from the Coolpix 5700). The image stabilization is amazing--even at 300mm, the challenge is in freezing subject movement, not camera movement (and I'm using a Digital Rebel, so the crop factor makes this essentially a 480mm lens). Assuming I have an opportunity to upload images, I will upload a 100% crop of a photo of a chickadee shot at ISO 200, f/7.1, 1/160 sec., 300mm, hand held, sharpened only with the default in-camera sharpening. At 1/160 sec., you can count hairlets on feathers and scales on toes, but the chickadee's head was moving too quickly to freeze. I've managed to capture similar detail down to 1/50 sec. at 300mm with birds that are not moving quite so quickly, and I don't think I have a particularly steady hand.
Thanks for the many informative reviews - I always read them before deciding on a purchase! I bought a 350D 3 months ago and am building my collection of lenses. Based partly on your recommendations in the article on EOS 300D and 350D lenses, I purchased the 28-135 IS and the 50mm 1.8 (I'm very happy with both). The next purchase was to be a 70-200L, but I wrestle with wondering whether the 200mm would be long enough. I would use this lens mostly for kids football games and some wildlife. After reading this article and a few others, I'm now leaning toward the 70-300IS. Always appreciate your view on these things!
*note: I did buy this lens & I love it. So far it's been used mostly for surfing photos. Haven't seen any problems with the portrait orientation at all.
It looks like the sharpness problem with my lens is the result of using it in
portrait-orientation. That's the same problem many other people have encountered.
This lens is either getting returned to Canon for a refund or I'm selling it
because the blurry results are unacceptable. Save yourself the hassle and buy
the Canon
70-200mm f/4L instead.
I owned this lens' predecessor, the 75-300mm IS. That lens was horrible. When I
read many good things about this new 70-300mm IS lens, I thought it was time to
upgrade. But, it was difficult to decide whether buy this lens or Canon's
70-200mm f/4L professional lens. I bought this lens and it was my mistake.
While it has numerous improvements over the 75-300mm IS, there are still some
shortcomings with this lens that keep it from competing with the similar-priced
70-200mm f/4L.
First, starting at around 150mm-200mm and getting worse as you approach 300mm,
this lens gives images that look soft (no, I'm not using any filters!). This is
not an issue of focus, but of low-cost consumer-grade optics. You can stop the
lens down and get some improvement, but then you lose your depth of field.
Second, the focusing speed is slow. New in this lens is variable-speed focusing;
as the zoom passes 200mm, the focusing speed slows. I assume this is to prevent
the missed-focus hunting common with its predecessor. But, this makes it harder
to track moving objects and keep them in focus.
Third, this lens suffers from very ugly purple chromatic aberration. This lens
really shows this problem too, in that even small bright objects develop purple
halos.
Finally, the lens gets larger as you zoom, the lens gets larger when you focus,
the front of the lens moves when focusing, the focus ring moves when
auto-focusing, the zoom retracts by itself when pointed upward, and I'm sure
there's more I'm forgetting... But none of these problems exist with the
70-200mm f/4L.
This is not "the hidden L lens" as one reviewer said, it is nothing
but a common consumer lens with a big price tag. The IS feature is the single
sole benefit. If you have very shaky hands you might just need this lens. If you
have very steady hands, with IS you can use this lens in the dark of night (assuming
you have a very still subject). The 200-300mm range is nice, but a tack-sharp
photo from the 70-200mm f/4L at 200mm is going to look much better cropped than
a 300mm full-frame photo from this lens.
If what you want is a very high quality lens that will give you sharp photos in
daylight; buy the 70-200mm f/4L lens instead, it even comes with a hood. The
hood for the 70-300mm IS lens is another $40. Canon
EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM Review
_
I have been using this lens for 1 year and a half. In the last month I noticed a little blur on my photos. Usually the image is pretty sharp. I discovered that the IS is producing this blur. It seems that it doesn't work like it should be. It still stabilizes the image, but it adds some vibrations. This is pretty strange.
I am using the IS 99% of the time. I did some testings when I bought the lens, but since then I always used IS.
I can't figure it out what is the reason for this. Could it be because I use my camera standby mode and not turn off the camera? Could it be still trying some stabilization even if the camera is in standby mode?
Don't know, but the fact is I was very content of the quality of this lens, until now ....
D.
Well, I think I judged too quickly, for my luck :D. The lens seems to work just fine. It was just unlucky shoot. After that day, I did some testings. I could not believe that it can break so easy.
Apparently it didn't. But something was wrong. The focus was on a plastic bottle recipient. The problem I think was that it was a very sunny day and the bottle reflected the sun. I think the lens tried to level the image, "thinking" that I was moving. But instead the light from the bottom of the bottle with all the irregularities was playing tricks on the lens IS system. It's interesting, because I did not notice a previous similar behavior.
I will be more vigilant in order to figure it out.
I will post new info if I get another symptom :P
D.
