Zoom Lens

[marcos]

Is this a good lens http://www.devoncamera.co.uk/index....t_id/301/subject/canon_ef_70300mm_f456_is_usm

Seems well priced but would I be better off getting something else a bit more expensive or for amateur use is this ok.

 

[BTB 500]

Looks fine to me, there's a good review of it here:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html

 

[zmaster007]

It all depends on what you will be using the lens for. At the long end of the zoom, the lowest f-number you can use is 5.6, which limits its low light ability. It would be good for outdoor wildlife photography.

HTH

 

[glojo]

I believe it represents good value for money and I will throw a suggestion into the pot that has not been mentioned yet!

Filters.
I always bung a filter onto ALL my lens if for no other reason than to protect the main glass bit (technical term)

It could be I am old fashioned and this practice is a forgotten habit?? I simply say it for both debate, and consideration. Hindsight is a gift we are tending to see a fair bit on this forum, so forewarned, might be forearmed. Get a filter for ALL your lens. I tend to go for hte UV type but I bow to other more experienced snappers

Regards,
John the snapper

 

[zmaster007]

Have to agree, all my lens' have a UV filter on, if nothing else but to protect the glass.

 

[BTB 500]

It all depends on what you will be using the lens for. At the long end of the zoom, the lowest f-number you can use is 5.6, which limits its low light ability.

True, but F5.6 isn't especially slow for an amateur-use 300mm zoom. It'd only become an issue if you need to stop action in low light ... for general shots the IS offsets the slower shutter speed. The smaller max. aperture also makes for a smaller & lighter lens, which is more portable. It does all depend on what you want/need (and how much you can afford!).

 

[BTB 500]

I always bung a filter onto ALL my lens if for no other reason than to protect the main glass bit

Yup, UV or Skylight ... and get a good quality one.

 

[w124coupe]

As always, with a quick froogle you can get it about £45 less..

 

[BonzoDog]

And here is another review from the quirky Ken Rockwell.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-300mm-is.htm
Agree about using a UV as a condom.

 

[scotth_uk]

Marcos,

This lens is a ripper - the only thing to be aware of is the IS motor noise, which many people believe to be a faulty device when it is not.

The pro lens nutters at work have had a go of this model, and all have agreed that it's better than the basic L series zoom that Canon make, and would recommend it each and every time.

I have had a quick play, and it seems excellent for the money.

 

[marcos]

I have ordered it, from somewhere else as it was cheaper, but it's ordered.
Hopefully it will be an excellent addition

Thanks guys for the advice.

 

[SimonsMerc]

This is a very good lens - I had a play with it yesterday in a local camera shop (I'm in Pittsburgh for the week and buying camera equipment is much cheaper over here). Didn't buy, because I already have a (far cheaper and inferior) Sigma 28-300 - without IS, but I'm planning on getting a tripod ;-)

I did buy a 50mm f/1.8 prime (for $80, costs about £80 back home), and it's a wonderful lens - it hasn't left my camera since I bought it!

-simon

 

[MainMan]

The trouble with filters is that the only thing they can ever do is make the image worse - it's just a matter of trying to limit the damage, such as loss of contrast and loss of detail. They also cost a lot. I never bother with them and I've never scratched a lens yet - plenty of scratches on the lens body and cap though. Anyway the odd scratch on the lens doesn't make much difference.