which allows you to look at res charts with all the different zooms and
aperture settings of the lens (and a lot of other canon's lenses actually).
At 70mm f/4 the chart is very soft in the lower pictures which are not even
at the corner of the chart, they are more off centre, near the edges.
Although, as you decrease the aperture size the image does becomes very
sharp.
I was hoping that the lens would produce sharper images than this at f/4
70mm.
However, it looks like the tester used the 1Ds mk II to test the lens, which
would cause more softness near the edges because it has a full frame sensor,
the 400d being APS-C sized should have less softness towards the edges.
I would like to decide whether or not to get this lens.
Has anyone any thoughts or opinions on this lens? Any happy owners?
"Matalog" <matalog@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:KGRji.3413$XR.1434@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> Has anyone used the Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens?
>
> I was thinking of getting this with the 400d.
>
> I was pretty much decided on it until I came across this webpage
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...9&LensComp=358
>
> which allows you to look at res charts with all the different zooms and
> aperture settings of the lens (and a lot of other canon's lenses
> actually).
>
> At 70mm f/4 the chart is very soft in the lower pictures which are not
> even at the corner of the chart, they are more off centre, near the edges.
> Although, as you decrease the aperture size the image does becomes very
> sharp.
>
> I was hoping that the lens would produce sharper images than this at f/4
> 70mm.
>
> However, it looks like the tester used the 1Ds mk II to test the lens,
> which would cause more softness near the edges because it has a full frame
> sensor, the 400d being APS-C sized should have less softness towards the
> edges.
>
> I would like to decide whether or not to get this lens.
>
He suggests you look at the 20-200mm f4 L. It's available in the UK for £357
on eBay from a seller called 123fstop. (he has one now Item number:
330141802562).
I know it's not got IS and it is only 200mm at the long end but it is sharp
across the full apeture and focal length range - read the review. L lenses
focus very fast, are superbly made and have excellent resale values. Mainly;
they are VERY sharp. You can get a 1.4x extender if you want and then you
have up to a 280mm f5.6 L lens that is only marginally less sharp than the
lens without the extender. I have the f2.8 version and regularly use it with
the extender to very good effect.
The lack of IS may be a problem for you. But you will be using a 400D which
can be used at ISO400 without noticeable noise and I happily use my 350D at
800ISO - if the noise it too noticable perhaps the picture's not very
interesting. Incidentally - if you haven't bought the body yet, consider a
30D. It has a shutter rated at 100 000 actuations - twice that of the 400D
so to make proper price comparisons you might consider dividing the price of
the 400D by 2. I find I can use my 30D a full stop higher ISO for the same
noise as the 350D - I don't know how 30D noise compares with 400D noise. But
you can read the reviews on the same site as the lens reviews.
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 21:42:16 +0100, Eatmorepies wrote:
> Incidentally - if you haven't bought the body yet, consider a
> 30D. It has a shutter rated at 100 000 actuations - twice that
> of the 400D so to make proper price comparisons you might
> consider dividing the price of the 400D by 2.
Wrong!!! (but no big deal, it's practically a typo). I think
that you meant "consider dividing the price of the 30D by 2", or
perhaps even "multiply the price of the 400D by 2".
But even that wouldn't be an ideal way to figure such things,
since values halfway into the life of a 30D are sure to change.
Purchased then, a second 400D would cost much less, or for the price
of the first 400D you might get a much better 450D, and in the
interim, could have used that money to earn a bit of interest.
"Eatmorepies" <xyztnday@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:468ffaaa_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> The full review of this lens is here;
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
>
> He suggests you look at the 20-200mm f4 L. It's available in the UK for
> £357 on eBay from a seller called 123fstop. (he has one now Item number:
> 330141802562).
>
> I know it's not got IS and it is only 200mm at the long end but it is
> sharp across the full apeture and focal length range - read the review. L
> lenses focus very fast, are superbly made and have excellent resale
> values. Mainly; they are VERY sharp. You can get a 1.4x extender if you
> want and then you have up to a 280mm f5.6 L lens that is only marginally
> less sharp than the lens without the extender. I have the f2.8 version and
> regularly use it with the extender to very good effect.
If you do go for the EF 70-200 f4L, be sure to check it carefully. I had to
return my 1st. copy - it was decentered. (And the 2nd copy, although
"acceptable", isn't that marvellous for a lens which gets rave reviews.)
>> Incidentally - if you haven't bought the body yet, consider a
>> 30D. It has a shutter rated at 100 000 actuations - twice that
>> of the 400D so to make proper price comparisons you might
>> consider dividing the price of the 400D by 2.
>
> Wrong!!! (but no big deal, it's practically a typo). I think
> that you meant "consider dividing the price of the 30D by 2", or
> perhaps even "multiply the price of the 400D by 2".
Quite right - it's a typo. You obviously understand the sense though.
>
> But even that wouldn't be an ideal way to figure such things,
> since values halfway into the life of a 30D are sure to change.
> Purchased then, a second 400D would cost much less, or for the price
> of the first 400D you might get a much better 450D, and in the
> interim, could have used that money to earn a bit of interest.
Which is why I used the weasly British expression "you might consider...".
There are other advantages to the 30D so the financial comparisons become
more complex still. I was happy to pay more to get 5 fps and spot metering.
If those features are of no use to you then factor them out. I don't mind
the extra size and weight of the 30D - if you must have a smaller lighter
body then the 400D ......
>"Eatmorepies" <xyztnday@lineone.net> wrote in message
>news:468ffaaa_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
>> The full review of this lens is here;
>> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
>>
>> He suggests you look at the 20-200mm f4 L. It's available in the UK for
>> £357 on eBay from a seller called 123fstop. (he has one now Item number:
>> 330141802562).
>>
>> I know it's not got IS and it is only 200mm at the long end but it is
>> sharp across the full apeture and focal length range - read the review. L
>> lenses focus very fast, are superbly made and have excellent resale
>> values. Mainly; they are VERY sharp. You can get a 1.4x extender if you
>> want and then you have up to a 280mm f5.6 L lens that is only marginally
>> less sharp than the lens without the extender. I have the f2.8 version and
>> regularly use it with the extender to very good effect.
>
>
>If you do go for the EF 70-200 f4L, be sure to check it carefully. I had to
>return my 1st. copy - it was decentered. (And the 2nd copy, although
>"acceptable", isn't that marvellous for a lens which gets rave reviews.)
>
>--
>M Stewart
>Milton Keynes, UK
I've had the Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM for a while and I've been
completely satisfied with it. I use it on a 350D.
Non-IS lens are ok if you don't mind carrying
a tripod with you each time you use it.
Jack Mac
"Jack Mac" <camkcaj@parkspringscommunities.com> wrote in message
news:uk60935d1elpkm1jskncq3q0b7rtj32605@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 22:46:16 +0100, "Malcolm Stewart"
> <malcolm_stewart@megalith.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Eatmorepies" <xyztnday@lineone.net> wrote in message
>>news:468ffaaa_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>
>>> The full review of this lens is here;
>>> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
>>>
>>> He suggests you look at the 20-200mm f4 L. It's available in the UK for
>>> £357 on eBay from a seller called 123fstop. (he has one now Item number:
>>> 330141802562).
>>>
>>> I know it's not got IS and it is only 200mm at the long end but it is
>>> sharp across the full apeture and focal length range - read the review.
>>> L
>>> lenses focus very fast, are superbly made and have excellent resale
>>> values. Mainly; they are VERY sharp. You can get a 1.4x extender if you
>>> want and then you have up to a 280mm f5.6 L lens that is only marginally
>>> less sharp than the lens without the extender. I have the f2.8 version
>>> and
>>> regularly use it with the extender to very good effect.
>>
>>
>>If you do go for the EF 70-200 f4L, be sure to check it carefully. I had
>>to
>>return my 1st. copy - it was decentered. (And the 2nd copy, although
>>"acceptable", isn't that marvellous for a lens which gets rave reviews.)
>>
>>--
>>M Stewart
>>Milton Keynes, UK
>
> I've had the Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM for a while and I've been
> completely satisfied with it. I use it on a 350D.
> Non-IS lens are ok if you don't mind carrying
> a tripod with you each time you use it.
> Jack Mac
Did you have a camera before this that it is better than?
I have a Fuji s9500 or s9000 and I want to know that the lens I buy with a
400d (or maybe another APS-C based camera) is going to produce sharper
images than my current camera.
"Matalog" <matalog@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:KGRji.3413$XR.1434@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> Has anyone used the Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens?
>
> I was thinking of getting this with the 400d.
>
>snip<
>
> I would like to decide whether or not to get this lens.
>
> Has anyone any thoughts or opinions on this lens? Any happy owners?
I used to be a happy owner. When I bought the lens, it was a hoot to play
with. I have the RebelXT, and I bought this lens along with the 50mm f/1.8,
which gave me much more flexibility over the kit lens.
I don't regret the purchase, but I've never been happy with the lack of
clarity. Then I made the mistake of renting some L-series glass, and the
weakness of the 70-300 has become disappointing to me.
I still use it quite a bit, but I know that I'm never going to get a
coffee-table-book shot with it.
Right now, I'm shooting with a 100-400mm L. In the next few days, I'll put a
side-by-side comparison with the 70-300 on my site. Another Real-World Lens
Test...
Meanwhile, there are examples of the 70-300 on my photo pages.
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 23:01:45 +0100, Eatmorepies wrote:
>> But even that wouldn't be an ideal way to figure such things,
>> since values halfway into the life of a 30D are sure to change.
>> Purchased then, a second 400D would cost much less, or for the price
>> of the first 400D you might get a much better 450D, and in the
>> interim, could have used that money to earn a bit of interest.
>
> Which is why I used the weasly British expression "you might consider...".
>
> There are other advantages to the 30D so the financial comparisons become
> more complex still. I was happy to pay more to get 5 fps and spot metering.
> If those features are of no use to you then factor them out. I don't mind
> the extra size and weight of the 30D - if you must have a smaller lighter
> body then the 400D ......
I had a similar choice to make. In the end I got a D50, mainly
because it was *so* much less money than a D80 or D200, and I
already had several older lenses, several of which might not have
produced much better results on the D80 and D200's higher res.
sensors. It has spot metering but not the higher frame rates. I
also figured that if I got the D80 or D200, I wouldn't want to
upgrade to their immediate replacements, but since there would be a
much greater difference between the D50 and a D90 or D300, I'd be
less inclined to wait to upgrade.
I'm very pleased with the results I've gotten with the D50. All
of the poorer pictures have been my fault, not the camera's. In
particular, some ducks I've known weren't very photogenic when
confronted by my P&S cameras. This year the D50 had a much easier
time capturing their descendents, even getting one just as it lifted
out of the water. Getting the same shot with one of the P&Ss would
have been possible but much less likely. They also focused much
more erratically on the water with such small subjects. Maybe in a
couple of years I'll upgrade the D50 to something more comparable to
your D30. Until then, don't eat too many pies. I know that I'd
better not!
"Matalog" <matalog@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:KGRji.3413$XR.1434@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> Has anyone used the Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens?
>
> I was thinking of getting this with the 400d.
>
> I was pretty much decided on it until I came across this webpage
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...9&LensComp=358
>
> which allows you to look at res charts with all the different zooms and
> aperture settings of the lens (and a lot of other canon's lenses
actually).
>
> At 70mm f/4 the chart is very soft in the lower pictures which are not
even
> at the corner of the chart, they are more off centre, near the edges.
> Although, as you decrease the aperture size the image does becomes very
> sharp.
>
> I was hoping that the lens would produce sharper images than this at f/4
> 70mm.
>
> However, it looks like the tester used the 1Ds mk II to test the lens,
which
> would cause more softness near the edges because it has a full frame
sensor,
> the 400d being APS-C sized should have less softness towards the edges.
>
> I would like to decide whether or not to get this lens.
>
> Has anyone any thoughts or opinions on this lens? Any happy owners?
>
>
You've probably already checked out imaging resources excellent work on this
lens, but if not, here it is: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/253/cat/11 I bought
this lens for my 30D, but I don't have anywhere near the resources to give
you a good answer, except "it looks good to me".
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM 
Linear Mode
