Canon 70-300 IS USM non-L lens or newer Nano version?
Oct 12, 2017 14:40:05 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
I'm mainly interested in which lens is more capable of delivering the better sharpness at/near 300mm. I've read the specs for the Nano version, and once had the original 70-300 IS USM non-L version. But the IQ (especially the sharpness) has not been discussed very much, especially with the newer Nano version.
I'm considering one of these lenses to replace my Canon 100-400 "L" Mark 1 lens due to it's heftiness, but it does deliver great results. I really need to get useable results close to 300mm wildlife. I know longer would be better, but have found 300mm doable for my purposes. I have the Canon 55-250mm STM lens and find it to be excellent at 250mm, even when cropping. Just need longer. I also have tried the newest Tamron 70-300mm lens, but was disappointed in it's results. However, I may have had one of the bad samples (rather common) with that lens; as many do rave about it.
I'd really appreciate hearing from actual users about this; as I know the written specs pretty well.
I'm considering one of these lenses to replace my Canon 100-400 "L" Mark 1 lens due to it's heftiness, but it does deliver great results. I really need to get useable results close to 300mm wildlife. I know longer would be better, but have found 300mm doable for my purposes. I have the Canon 55-250mm STM lens and find it to be excellent at 250mm, even when cropping. Just need longer. I also have tried the newest Tamron 70-300mm lens, but was disappointed in it's results. However, I may have had one of the bad samples (rather common) with that lens; as many do rave about it.
I'd really appreciate hearing from actual users about this; as I know the written specs pretty well.
Oct 12, 2017 14:59:39 #
Make the jump to the Canon 100-400 version ii. Best decision you will ever make.
Oct 12, 2017 15:08:41 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
I'm afraid it's a bit too expensive even if I were to sell my current Mark 1 version.
Oct 12, 2017 15:15:45 #
For the best bang for the buck, I would look into the Tamron 150-600 for wildlife. Either version is a great lens. V2 is a much better lens faster focusing and doesn't breath as much. You can find V1 used on e bay for 600 to 800 and the other is around 1200.
Oct 12, 2017 15:20:35 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
I have handled one of those. Way too heavy. And though I could/should use a tripod or monopod, I don't want to ALWAYS HAVE TO shoot that way. The tele length would be ideal, though.
Oct 12, 2017 15:25:35 #
If you can't move to the 100-400v II, you might find your current lens is your best option. Have you done any pricing of used VII models? The lens has been out a while and there may be some now in the used market. If you're looking for top performance at 300, have you looked at the 300 f/4L IS - a prime lens? Have you considered renting candidate lenses rather than buying based on other's experiences rather than your own?
Oct 12, 2017 15:49:23 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
Renting might just be the way to go. All this concern is for a Yellowstone trip this next Spring.
Oct 12, 2017 15:54:45 #
BobT wrote:
Renting might just be the way to go. All this concern is for a Yellowstone trip this next Spring.
You might find renting specifically for the trip is a cost effective approach too.
Oct 13, 2017 08:29:53 #
I have the newer version of the Canon 70-300 and find I am using it for most of my wildlife photos. Also use the 100-400, which is great but for me, must be on a tripod. The 70-300 is my go to lens for walking around.
Oct 13, 2017 08:41:24 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
What's your opinion of the 70-300 at the very 300mm end? Is that the "Nano" version that you have?
Oct 13, 2017 12:22:26 #
BobT wrote:
I'm mainly interested in which lens is more capabl... (show quote)
The Tamron 70-300 that every one raves about - I HAD one - it was horrible @300 - OK at 250 tho - I got rid of it in a hurry. Mine was a bad sample ? - still, the IQ after 250mm falls off sharply - this is a known fact !
So, I do have both the 55-250 STM and the 70-300 nano. As stated, the 55-250 is a GREAT lens ! - the nano is slightly better tho at maximum extension wide open - I tested them - quite a bit larger/heavier and more expensive - but it is better. Here is Rockwell's review of the nano - http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-300mm-is-ii.htm
This little bird ( 5 inches) was shot with the nano @300mm f5.6 and then a 2X cropping on a 80D .......with judicious PP.
Oct 13, 2017 12:24:49 #
BobT wrote:
I'm mainly interested in which lens is more capabl... (show quote)
What camera body are you using?
Oct 13, 2017 13:42:47 #
Oct 13, 2017 13:46:56 #
BobT wrote:
I'm mainly interested in which lens is more capabl... (show quote)
I just bought the new nano 70-300 after having my original 70-300 USM IS version stolen. I haven't tested it yet but Ken Rockwell gives it a superlative rating for the compactness, light weight and IQ. He has the 100-400'L" and says he uses it, now, only for Professional assignments. He says he usually finds he's grabbing the 70-300 more and more with great results. Check out his review at kenrockwell.com. Needless to say, I was pleased to read it.
C
Oct 13, 2017 13:52:29 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
Quite the glowing review. Making me serious about maybe giving it a try.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.