Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM (1 Viewer)

Denny Woodthorpe · Mar 21, 2008

I have a Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO telephoto lens at the moment and I'm considering changing to a Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM (the cheaper of the two versions). The main reason is the IS facility.
Questions.
1. Has anyone experience of the lens?
2. Would the IS facility allow hand-held shots down to around 125th sec.?
3. Anyone compared the two lenses (Canon and Sigma)? Would I see a difference apart from the IS?
4. Would my Kenko 1.5 teleplus MC DG work on the Canon? It works well on the Sigma.
Any help would be appreciated, especially as I need to sell the idea to the wife!
Cheers,
Denny

|)\/8 · Mar 21, 2008

Denny Woodthorpe said:
I have a Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO telephoto lens at the moment and I'm considering changing to a Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM (the cheaper of the two versions). The main reason is the IS facility.
Questions.
1. Has anyone experience of the lens?
2. Would the IS facility allow hand-held shots down to around 125th sec.?
3. Anyone compared the two lenses (Canon and Sigma)? Would I see a difference apart from the IS?
4. Would my Kenko 1.5 teleplus MC DG work on the Canon? It works well on the Sigma.
Any help would be appreciated, especially as I need to sell the idea to the wife!
Cheers,
Denny

I do not own this lens but I do have a Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS USM and I have taken hand held shots as low a 1/15 without issue. But please remember, IS is for camera shake and will not help with moving subjects. If you are working in minimal light and low shutter speeds, IS is a great asset. Here is an example (sorry not a bird photo):

EXIF Data:

Shutter Speed: 1/15 sec
F-Stop: f/2.8
ISO: 400
Focal Length: 70 mm

macshark · Mar 21, 2008

Denny Woodthorpe said:
I have a Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO telephoto lens at the moment and I'm considering changing to a Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM (the cheaper of the two versions). The main reason is the IS facility.
Questions.
1. Has anyone experience of the lens?

This is a very good lens. Optically, it is better than the Sigma 70-300 APO. On top of that you get USM (though not of the ring type) & IS. It is not nearly as good as the EF 70-200 f/4L IS, but unless you are going to pixel peep, it is good enough for most practical purposes.

2. Would the IS facility allow hand-held shots down to around 125th sec.?

1/125 even at 300mm is no problem if you have a good grip and decent shutter release technique. The picture attached below was taken at 1/40s at 300mm. Note that fill flash was used (Av mode) for this picture to fill in the shadows, but I have many other decent shots at 300mm with shutter speeds below 1/100 with this lens.

3. Anyone compared the two lenses (Canon and Sigma)? Would I see a difference apart from the IS?

Check out the resolution figures at PhotoZone:
-> Sigma 70-300mm APO test report
-> Canon EF 70-300mm USM IS test report

Note that the Sigma test is for the latest "APO DG Macro" version of this lens, which is more likely better than the previous versions.

Bottomline: Canon has substantially better resolution at 300mm. Especially border resolution figures are in an entirely different league at all focal lengths. Canon also has less vignetting. At 300mm, Sigma has an ugly amount of CA whereas CA is very well controlled for the EF 70-300mm IS throughout the zoom range.

4. Would my Kenko 1.5 teleplus MC DG work on the Canon? It works well on the Sigma.

Depends on which camera you have. I had limited success with the Kenko 1.5x and EF 70-300 IS on a 350D, though there were severe hunting at times (ra-ta-ta-ta-ta) when contrast was not sufficient.

Any help would be appreciated, especially as I need to sell the idea to the wife!
Cheers,
Denny

Here are a few more favorable reviews for the EF 70-300 IS USM;

-> EF 70-300mm IS USM review from BobAtkins.com
-> EF 70-300mm IS USM review from DigitalPicture.com

Denny Woodthorpe · Mar 21, 2008

Wow!
Thanks MacShark for all your help - and so speedy too.
I'm sold. Just one to go.

HokkaidoStu · Mar 22, 2008

I got this lens to replace the Sigma 70-300 and it's way way better. The AF is much faster and you can use it all the way up to 300mm and still have reasonably sharp pics (something I could never get with the Sigma).

Some people use teleconverters with it (lots of threads on other forums about this) but I've never tried. I suspect it'd be manual focus only.

Unless you're set on getting a 70-300 lens you may want to wait for reviews of 2 new Sigma lenses, a 120-400 and a 150-500 both with Sigma's equivalent of IS. They're pricier than the Canon 70-300 IS but not by that much and they'll be out soon. Just a thought.

Denny Woodthorpe · Mar 22, 2008

Thanks Stu, I might just do that.

Denny

Robert L Jarvis · Mar 22, 2008

Denny. I have this lens. The AF does work with a TC, I use a Kenko 1.4 but there is a penalty though on the F stops. In poor light or indistinct subject the AF may hunt.

Get a newie and the IS is 2 stage!!

HokkaidoStu · Mar 23, 2008

Robert L Jarvis said:
Denny. I have this lens. The AF does work with a TC, I use a Kenko 1.4 but there is a penalty though on the F stops. In poor light or indistinct subject the AF may hunt.

Do you have any example pics with the t/c?

I've been using the 100-400 on loan this winter but have to give it back very soon. I won't be able to afford a big lens for a while so I was kind of thinking about the Kenko 1.4 to go with my 70-300. Is it worth it? Or would cropping produce the same results?

Robert L Jarvis · Mar 23, 2008

Stu, I believe I and my sons will be seeing you at the weekend. So speak to you then.

Robert

Dave mac · Mar 24, 2008

Hi Denny, I have the cannon 70-300 you have enquired about and I like it a lot. Handholding it low speeds is not problem and in this respect its as good as my Canon 100-400 L. Its lighter than the 100-400 and so more convenient to walk around with. Also with a spacer it makes a great lens for dragons and butterflies

macshark · Mar 24, 2008

The IS system on the EF 70-300 IS actually even better than the IS system on the 100-400L, though optically 100-400L is better. The 70-300 weighs only 690 grams while the 100-400L weighs 1,380 grams.

Denny Woodthorpe · Mar 25, 2008

Thanks

:t::t:
Thanks for all the advice and comments. It looks like I might be "splashing the cash" in the not too distant future.
Denny
:-O:-O

killy · Mar 30, 2008

Denny Woodthorpe said:
I have a Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO telephoto lens at the moment and I'm considering changing to a Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM (the cheaper of the two versions). The main reason is the IS facility.
Questions.
1. Has anyone experience of the lens?
2. Would the IS facility allow hand-held shots down to around 125th sec.?
3. Anyone compared the two lenses (Canon and Sigma)? Would I see a difference apart from the IS?
4. Would my Kenko 1.5 teleplus MC DG work on the Canon? It works well on the Sigma.
Any help would be appreciated, especially as I need to sell the idea to the wife!
Cheers,
Denny

Hi I owned both these lenses and did a back to back test some years ago, the sigma was sharper.

regards

mike

Denny Woodthorpe · Mar 31, 2008

Oh dear!

Ooops. I hope the Canon is better than my Sigma, because I've just ordered one! The killer specification for me is the IS as I want to do more "stalking" with a hand-held camera. I'll let you all know what the results of the "trade up" are in the not-too-distant future.
Thanks to everyone for your help.
Denny
:t:

Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM (1 Viewer)

More options

Denny Woodthorpe

Denny

|)\/8

Active member

Attachments

macshark

Electron Chaser

Attachments

Denny Woodthorpe

Denny

HokkaidoStu

occasional moderator

Denny Woodthorpe

Denny

Robert L Jarvis

Robert L Jarvis

HokkaidoStu

occasional moderator

Robert L Jarvis

Robert L Jarvis

Dave mac

Well-known member

macshark

Electron Chaser

Denny Woodthorpe

Denny

killy

Well-known member

Denny Woodthorpe

Denny

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread