300IS vs 300USM for birding without and L 400

P

P-Chan

Messages
429
Name
Ramon
Edit My Images
Yes
Many say that the 75-300 IS is sooooo much better the the non IS 300 USM. Heard here peeps say that its an L lens without the L. Peeps also said its sooo DAMN better then the USM 300 regardless the IS.

I have to say I almost got me convinced.

But

The glass itself is better then the non IS?

Im after one day the L 400 but costs a fortune. (I love birding)

But if the IS is so DAMN good I could bird it with the 300 IS instead of my cheap 300 without going balistic in buying one day the 400 L. After all with the price the L costs I could also afford me the 2nd dream lens 10-22 CAnon. Granted I would loose me 100mm but again for true bird I heard 400 isnt even really enough

So guys is the 75-300 IS lens really worth the effort of sparing me buying a 100-400 L and instead getting me 2 lenses with less money and dont regret it later?
 
Slow down & run that by me one more time :shake:

The 75-300 IS is not that highly regarded at all amongst Canon zooms, infact it gets absolutely caned on many web fora (forums), I had one, it's ok, but 70-300 much better.

100-400 is in a different league again, and price :eek: do a little searching, it'll all become much clearer!
 
The problems arise because there are several similar variations of this lens

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM lens
The above 2 are mediocre at best the the IS version is actually discontinued. Cheap budget lenses usually thrown in as part of the camera bundle.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens
There's the DO version, which uses Diffractive Optics, compact, useful for a holiday lens, but soft and not worth the extra $$$$$

Then there's the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. Budget zoom, but a little gem of a lens, OK probably not L series optics, but for the $$$$ its a very good budget zoom

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

So the canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens is the one to go for.
 
As for a lens for birds, you really need 300/400mm +, you could consider the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6, but as you'll be shooting mainly at the 300mm 400mm end of the range, have you thought about the 300mm f4 (and/or 1.4x TC) or the 400mm f5.6, both these primes are in the same price bracket as the 100-400mm, but will be faster focusing and sharper than the 100-400mm at the 400mm end.
 
As has been said, the lens you're calling a 'hidden L' is the 70-300 IS USM. I've just sold mine, but it's a brilliant lens. It's got some of the really expensive glass you get in L lenses, but the build quality isn't quite up to L standards.

I'd say go for the 70-300 IS USM, and get saving for the 100-400 L further down the road. It's what I did!

Chris
 
wow thanks guys.

Its the 70 -300 IS that i mean hidden L. Luckily I didnt go barging in the 75-300IS. I already have the 300USM and trying to squeeze as much juice outta it and just leaving me flat :shake:

My body and sould are screaming 100-400L but

a) its very expensive.

my ecomomical self is trying to convince me not to go L but get instead the 70-300 hidden L and get me a totally different concept 10-22 also a favourite aspect of the hobby for me (not as much as birds at the moment)

That means 2 lens for the price of 1

b) I read that the 100-400L was introduced 1998. Thus that makes the lens 12 years old.



My most convincing myself is that the 400L yes is better then the 70-300 at bird but not by a couple hundred miles thus the 70-300 IS would still make my day out there in the woods

and expensive L s can be an issue when I have a 200+ year old house to fix which sucks out most of my money
 
Good decision (IMHO)

Get the 70-300IS, I'm sure you'll have fun, it's a bit short for birds but I enjoyed using even the cr*ppy 75-300IS, and got some good shots too.

PS take a look at the Sigma 150-500 OS if you are thinking about bird photography..........lot cheaper than the Canon 100-400, not quite as good I agree.........now waiting for Artyman & his starling pic with the Sigma :naughty:
 
Mad Badger said:
PS what body are you using? 1.6 crop I hope??
Click to expand...

u got me with the 1.6 crop :thinking:

and Im just entry level on body. 500d is my thing. Never thought when I 1st started I would be serouisly considering a lens twice the price of the body
 
500D is a nice camera, it's got a "crop frame" sensor which makes the focal length seem 1.6 times longer than a full frame DSLR such as the Canon 5D or 1 series bodies, just like my humble 450D ;) You also have a lot more mega pixels to crop with & a better screen than me!

Enjoy
 
Mad Badger said:
You also have a lot more mega pixels to crop with & a better screen than me!

Enjoy
Click to expand...

its why i got me the 500 instead of the 450. better pixels and better screen and better age though I was after the 450 at 1st. Hehe yet again u talk with a vast amount of peeps in here who would pass any 450 and 500s as toys for kids :eek: Personally i adore my 500. For ametuer and purely hobby its wonderful. Id drool way more for a 100-400 then any Mk1s :love:
 
Don't worry bout the body, put some good glass on it & you're laughing, my guilty pleasure..........I put a Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS on my 450D..at least it'll work on a grown up Canon too ;¬)
 
70-200L i read is a little angle but still thinking where such a lens could be brought in. 200 is some zoom but why go 200 when u can go 300 :thinking:
 
f2.8, you can shoot without flash in low light, nice narrow DoF, really fast AF & great image quality.......however the f4 IS version is lighter cheaper & some say even better IQ, it's a personal thing.

I agree, it's not a wildlife lens, that's why I got the Sigma 150-500 as well.

However I put the 70-200 on a tripod on the decking in my back garden, prefocussed on a bird feeder, used a wireless shutter release & took pics of birds from indoors, nice & warm the other day :thumbs:
 
how do u find the sigma 500? I thought of it for an alternative for the 400L but reviews left me more then once flat. Sigma somehow scares me.

I cant really take much pics of birds from my back garden. My dog, whose name sake I use in here, managed to turn the place into a desert.

And its funny the way u say nice and warm the other day.... Its always nice and warm here and its winter for the love of God whilst the rest of Europe is frozen :shrug:


Reading some reviews on the 70-300IS im satrting to like it more and more. At least this dude, The-Digital-Picture.com aint bashing it as bad as he does with any non L. And its also seem new generation lens
 
Haven't used it but like the dude on digital-picture.com says, it's got to be a good lens, so many people rate it, where the h*ll are you if it's not freezing?!? Def not in the UK??

Yeah I have 2 dogs, but they get to stay indoors when I get the tripod out!

The Sigma 150-500 is a true bargain I reckon, you do need to stop it down to f7.1 or f8 to get it sharper at the long end (500mm), you also need to practice like mad to get good handheld shots...I bought a bean bag & borrowed a cheap tripod cos at first I thought the lens was *****, until I realised the only ***** was on the other side of the camera :help:

Much happier now with my BigmOS, if I had the cash I would have gone for the Canon 100-400 though.....................next year maybe...........maybe...............
 
That is very useful!

Thanks for getting us back on track & confirming the reputation of the 100-400!
 
lol Malta is my country hence why we are not freezing. Actually when taking pics Sun is the problem here as its always everywhere. Meh we complain about the hot weather here then give us a couple weeks no sun and we are all crying to have our beloved torturer back :love: . Though a white christmas or at least a cold xmas would have been way better then an Aussie xmas.

As for the bigma I would still give it the skips im afraid. Dont tantalize me a bit somehow that lens. Also worrying me is the fact that if I go 70-300 and 10-22 for cheaper more economy it would be in 2 years that I would eventually upgrade me to a white lens. By then the 100-400 would be probs obsolete same as my camera body.

But if I go 100-400 this year Id have to say bye bye to the 10-22 and im Malta me being also in love with the heritage a wide angle is a must. How else can u get the lenght of Valletta in one single shot?
 
Mad Badger said:
That is very useful!

Thanks for getting us back on track & confirming the reputation of the 100-400!
Click to expand...

Yeah - sometimes those chart comparisons can be misleading and the differences between the lenses might be less obvious on 'real' subjects. Having said that, the 70-300 looks toilet in the example.

Phil
 
P-Chan said:
But if I go 100-400 this year Id have to say bye bye to the 10-22 and im Malta me being also in love with the heritage a wide angle is a must. How else can u get the lenght of Valletta in one single shot?
Click to expand...

Sod the 10-22, buy the 100-400 and then you can always stitch together a panorama!

Phil
 
philthejuggler said:
Sod the 10-22, buy the 100-400 and then you can always stitch together a panorama!

Phil
Click to expand...

lol love your straight foward manner but stitching is kinda like cheating in certain panoramas me thinks :thinking: . U cant really stich a rounded ceiling I assume. It just aint the same
 
Mad Badger said:
Listen to the man, he speaks sense ;)

100-400L is calling you
Click to expand...

its actually screaming my name but in the distance im still seeing 2 for the price of 1 hehe. yet a white big lens is still what i see when i close my eyes admitedly.
 
Or a nice black lens in the Sigma 150-500, no need to be scared of Sigma it's a cracking lens, and a good bit cheaper than the Canon 100-400. There are loads of cracking wildlife example shots taken with it around the web.
 
Ahh....an excuse to show off my favourite picture i'e taken.....

Image4.jpg


This was using the Canon 70-300IS lens on a 400D on a moving boat in Malaysia at full zoom. I think it's a damn fine lens. I also have a 70-200 IS but leave that at home when on holiday and take the 70-300 as i think it gives very comparable shots in decent light :)
 
If you can push the boat out I would get a 300L IS prime and a 1.4x Extender, much better than the zoom and will give you 420mm with IS and the 1.4x.
 
EdBray said:
If you can push the boat out I would get a 300L IS prime and a 1.4x Extender, much better than the zoom and will give you 420mm with IS and the 1.4x.
Click to expand...

300Lis as expensive as the 400 I believe. Adding the extender and makes it really unattractive money wise.


Nice shot of the eagle. How far away was it? And if its cropped.

I took a pic of a relative big bird (heron size) in flight at 300mm with the 75-300 USM at about 300 meters away (according to google earth) and it came pretty much the same size I was seeing it with my naked eyes. Slightly very slightly bigger. Cropped was a mess.

If the 70-300 improves in cropping after then my current lens then Id really think about it.

Sigma 500 decided I might help myself in giving it a look. Its after all the poorman's wildlife lens and I am poor :'( (no insults intended at anyone just the general idea I get from the reviews)

The 400 just keeps cropping up anywhere the more Im trying to aviod it. It came up at work too, this dude showing pics of this other dude using the white one. Damn!
 
I'm not sure how far away it was but a fair distance. That image has been slightly cropped but not by much. Here's the same image uncropped although at a lower resolution as from my facebook page (not got access to the PC the original image is on)

Eagle.jpg
 
thanks I can imagine the distance more or less pretty close by. Is that a captive bred or a wildone that came quite close? if its a wild one then wow mate its almost like winning the lottery :)
 
P-Chan said:
300Lis as expensive as the 400 I believe. Adding the extender and makes it really unattractive money wise.


Nice shot of the eagle. How far away was it? And if its cropped.

I took a pic of a relative big bird (heron size) in flight at 300mm with the 75-300 USM at about 300 meters away (according to google earth) and it came pretty much the same size I was seeing it with my naked eyes. Slightly very slightly bigger. Cropped was a mess.

If the 70-300 improves in cropping after then my current lens then Id really think about it.

Sigma 500 decided I might help myself in giving it a look. Its after all the poorman's wildlife lens and I am poor :'( (no insults intended at anyone just the general idea I get from the reviews)

The 400 just keeps cropping up anywhere the more Im trying to aviod it. It came up at work too, this dude showing pics of this other dude using the white one. Damn!
Click to expand...

The problem there is not the optics but the situation. You know you wouldn't get anything more usable if you had a 400mm L lens right?
 
P-Chan said:
thanks I can imagine the distance more or less pretty close by. Is that a captive bred or a wildone that came quite close? if its a wild one then wow mate its almost like winning the lottery :)
Click to expand...

It was a wild one mate, it was hunting for fish and we just happened to be in the right place at the right time :)
 
RichardtheSane said:
The problem there is not the optics but the situation. You know you wouldn't get anything more usable if you had a 400mm L lens right?
Click to expand...

its the 70-300 IS. Fate dealt me a blow beneath the waist. 100-400L is outta question till next year. Now I cant even get me my original thought of 2 lens for 1. 10-22 is for next year too :'( Buying the 70-300 for mercies sake for myself :D

@SIB that would be lovely having such a bird flying so close. Its really beautiful. The best I got apart from captive was this kestrel on new year I saw it flying real low over my car so jumped outta car but before I could take my 1st shot i ended up running after my car down hill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top