[Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM] Good lens with some (intended) weakness
From ruessler
I own the 70-300mm has been a while and have mainly tested in various zoos. Therefore, it is very practical.
I tested it on an EOS 30D. Previously I used for tele-recording a 70-300mm from Tamron, though quite good, but without stability, and has some disadvantages, which a lens for 140 now times entails.
The imaging performance of the Canon is really very good, both the sharpness and color illustrations are top class. It is indeed like a “hidden L lens” means.
For 70-200mm is the best imaging performance, beyond the images are sometimes a bit flat, but still pretty good. This problem relates, however, most lenses in this class (including the Nikon), who wants more, you must stop to expensive L lenses draw.
DXO Optics Pro works with this lens well. At the results, there is nothing to grumble.
After all the praise, however, must also be criticized, because some disadvantages of this lens from Canon are apparently wanted.
The following things cause:
1. The autofocus is reasonably usable, but no real USM, in terms of speed is little better than a rod-AF. Unfortunately, the lens in action sometimes even a little gepatzt.
2. The front element rotates. Well, the mag just for the users of polarizing filters or Grauverlaufsfiltern important, but must not be.
3. A distance scale is missing.
4. As usual there is no lens hood at. Canon wants a piece of plastic for 40 have … na toll.
My conclusion:
Quite decent telephoto lens, but unfortunately with some homemade weaknesses. These apparently serve only to show the lens to the – the way, according to most tests are not necessarily better – well twice (!) So expensive 70-300mm lens Thursday to “weaken”.
A pity that Canon is necessary.
Alternatives would be the 55-250mm IS, which in my experience, however, poor maps and even slower focused. Moreover, it does not fit on Canon cameras with APS-H sensor or Full.
That 70-300mm DO is optically approximately equal, but in some superior features.
The L lenses may also be mentioned as an alternative, however, must be either a shorter distance to take in (70-200mm in different versions) and pay more, or one uses the same 100-400mm lens.
Overall, a recommendation, although only 4 stars because of these criticisms.
translated from amazon.de customer review.
