Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-4.5 IS USM: I was wondering if anyone has used this lens or knows anything about it's quality and IQ??? I was thinking of replacing my EF 75-300mm lll kit lens...

jazzman1 Loc: South Of The Border

I was wondering if anyone has used this lens or knows anything about it's quality and IQ??? I was thinking of replacing my EF 75-300mm lll kit lens with this one. I've read conflicting reviews on this lens, the reviews are all over the map.

Would I be getting better results with this lens over my 75-300mm to make it a good buy???

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

I have owned and used both. Between the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, there is little noticeable difference in the image quality on my 7D MK II or my 5D MK III. The image stabilization is nice on the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I would save money and go to the 'L' version of the 70-300mm lens will give you the better image quality at a higher cost (around $1400.00 instead of around $650.00), if you really want a 70-300mm Canon lens.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

jazzman1 wrote:

I was wondering if anyone has used this lens or knows anything about it's quality and IQ??? I was thinking of replacing my EF 75-300mm lll kit lens with this one. I've read conflicting reviews on this lens, the reviews are all over the map.

Would I be getting better results with this lens over my 75-300mm to make it a good buy???

I certainly recommend the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I bought mine used for $275 and it has been a very good purchase. I definitely recommend IS at this length of lens. It is generally well reviewed and although getting old now is a lot less expensive than the L equivalent.

If you are interested in saving up to spend more serious money you could look at the brand new 100-400mm zoom, which would be step up in every way.

Donkas1946 Loc: Southern NH

I have to agree as I too have owned the first two and found that the 70-300 much better in IQ, However I have since gone with the 70-300L and that beats them all. It is by far the sharpest lens in my bag not counting the new 100-400 ii. You will love the 70-300L. Hope this helps!

haroldross wrote:

I have owned and used both. Between the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, there is little noticeable difference in the image quality on my 7D MK II or my 5D MK III. The image stabilization is nice on the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I would save money and go to the 'L' version of the 70-300mm lens will give you the better image quality at a higher cost (around $1400.00 instead of around $650.00), if you really want a 70-300mm Canon lens.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Mine is EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (your title says 4.5, but I think other folks who have responded in your topic also say 5.6).

Unlike Peterff's super deal, I paid $389 used (excellent condition) through B&H. But I have been extremely happy with it!

UHH user gregoryd45 also has one, and his bird shots are fantastic (he now uses a longer lens :) )

Here's one of mine, with Canon T3i crop sensor DSLR

(Download)

jazzman1 Loc: South Of The Border

Thanks guys....haroldross, peterff, denkas1946, and linda. I am just getting started with my lens collection and will base my collection on Canon f/4 L's. The lens I really want is the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L, but I can't afford it right now> I was looking for a more affordable compromise for right now. I was hoping the 70-300mm IS USM would satisfy my needs till I can afford better. From what you guys say, it looks like a good buy for now.

jazzman1 Loc: South Of The Border

Thanks haroldross, I will get the L's in the future. I do have the EF 24-105 f/4 L now, and do plan to add more L's to my collection in the furure.

jazzman1 Loc: South Of The Border

Thanks PeterFF.

I'm going to order a refurb from B&H for $589.00. You got a really good deal. I saw cheaper used ones at B&H but were worried about the quality of used lens. You say used is Ok from B&H??? I had read to stay away from used lens.

jazzman1 Loc: South Of The Border

Thanks Donkas1946

Yes, it helps. I plan on getting the 70-200 L in the future. Maybe I will give a look at these you mention here.

jazzman1 Loc: South Of The Border

Thanks Linda. You're right, my mistake it is the 4-5.6. That's a nice shot you took. What range MM did you take your pic at??? It helps to know some of you guys like the 70-300mm IS USM. I wasn't aware buying used got such good results. I always read not to chance used lens, but refurb from the manufacturer were fine. You got good results with used.

anotherview Loc: California

Ditto. The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Lens is a winner. I own and use this quality lens.

haroldross wrote:

I have owned and used both. Between the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, there is little noticeable difference in the image quality on my 7D MK II or my 5D MK III. The image stabilization is nice on the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I would save money and go to the 'L' version of the 70-300mm lens will give you the better image quality at a higher cost (around $1400.00 instead of around $650.00), if you really want a 70-300mm Canon lens.

jazzman1 Loc: South Of The Border

Thanks anotherview. You guys comments are reassuring on that lens. I agree the L's everyone mentioned are the best, but I don't have the money for those right now. I will be getting L's in the future.

jazzman1 Loc: South Of The Border

I'm surprised there would be little difference in these two lenses for the great difference in price. I believe you, but why would Canon charge so much more for the 70-300mm IS USM with little change in IQ??? That makes no sense to me. How could Canon expect anyone to buy this lens if this is the case????

I agree with you on the L lenses and will be getting L's in the future.

anotherview Loc: California

One explanation: Canon "L" lenses come with weather sealing for performance under trying conditions. They also usually have better construction. I presume Canon also takes more pains to achieve finer optics in its "L" lenses.

jazzman1 wrote:

I'm surprised there would be little difference in these two lenses for the great difference in price. I believe you, but why would Canon charge so much more for the 70-300mm IS USM with little change in IQ??? That makes no sense to me. How could Canon expect anyone to buy this lens if this is the case????

I agree with you on the L lenses and will be getting L's in the future.

jazzman1 Loc: South Of The Border

I agree, and I'm aware of the better quality and build with Canon L lenses. I'm referring to the great difference in price between the Canon EF 75-300 mm lll kit lens vs. Canon 70-300mm IS USM lens...with no seemingly better IQ. That's a lot to charge for a lens one would see no better quality in IQ.