Hi all,
I have a 400D and have been planning to buy a telephoto for some time. Initially i was waiting to take a Canon 70-300mm EF USM lens (non IS, non L) but i have read so many bad reviews about it. Will saving up for a USM and IS lens make better sense? or is that overrated as well?
Which one is better for airshows and ground to air shots?
Are there better alternatives in Sigma or Tamron?
Would appreciate your advice..
Jagan
By: George J - 5th April 2007 at 02:20
I use a 70-200 f/2.8IS and it has 2 modes of IS (stationary and panning) and I can say that you really do need the panning IS for really getting good pics (along with 5fps + fast CF card).
The 70-300mm has the 3gen IS but I donno if it has the panning IS, if it does its worth it.
________
extreme q vaporizer
________
The girls next door advice
By: Wessex Fan - 27th March 2007 at 17:12
you do not really need the I/S for aviation stuff. unless you suffer badly with the shakes.
I must admit to taking slight issue with the above statement, image stabilization in a lens has as much to do with camera usability in low light situations. Typically it is quoted as giving the photographer a two stop advantage over an un-stabilized lens!
WF
By: vulcan558 - 27th March 2007 at 16:05
Thanks Ian and WF.
Can anyone shed light on the Non-IS Canon 70-300mm USM?
Whats the waste rate like?
Jagan the non I/S and USM non USM are all the same lens
the USM just uses a quieter focus motor than the non USM so say its makes it focus faster but if it does its nano seconds , The I/S version is the same lens bit with I/s built in to the lens . they all have the same glass at the front
so will all take the same quality picture. USM would be the one to go for . you do not really need the I/S for avaition stuff. unless you suffer badly with the shakes.
By: Wessex Fan - 25th March 2007 at 22:19
Its a good lens Jagan, I used one for quite a few years, with in flight shots the waste rate is going to be down to how well you pan a camera, what the subject is, what shutter speed is used etc in other words its down to practice!
Blue Skies
WF
By: Jagan - 25th March 2007 at 20:49
Thanks Ian and WF.
Can anyone shed light on the Non-IS Canon 70-300mm USM?
Whats the waste rate like?
By: Wessex Fan - 25th March 2007 at 19:29
Like Manc I have been using a 70 to 300 mm IS lens for a few years now and have found it to be a super lens, however like Manc I find it a bit short, consequently I hope to purchase the 100 to 400mm IS ‘L’ series Lens.
It all comes down to money, 100 to 400mm lens is over £1000 here compared to approx £400 for the 70 to 300mm IS lens
Cheers
By: Manc - 25th March 2007 at 18:19
I had the 70-300 IS USM and its a great lens, lightweight and nearly but if you don’t need 300mm then consider the 70-200 F4. However I found 300mm a little short using the 70-300 IS USM at Fariford this year so I invested in the 100-400 IS L. If you need to see some shots using the 70-300 check my shots on a.net in the sig.
Sign In
March 25, 2007 at 4:42 pm