Anyone got a Canon 70-300mm 4/5.6 IS??

nicknackgtb

Just looking to find out what you think of this lense. looking for something nice for taking pics of cars and them in movement also, and this seems to be the best one for my budget.

Ideally I would love the 70-200 2.8 version but thats just a little to expensive for a non professional!!!!!

Let me know what you think.

Cheers guys and gals!

jpb1974

I'm like a broken record but you can't beat the 70-200 F4 L.

About €400 used.

Fantastic lens.

nicknackgtb

jpb1974 wrote: »

I'm like a broken record but you can't beat the 70-200 F4 L.

About €400 used.

Fantastic lens.

where??????? im trying to find one of those either and if i could get one at that price i'd be happy!!

Diabhal_Glas

Dont mean to hijack the thread but could someone list some UK second hand online stores that are reliable and describe the items condition honestly.

I remember this one being mentioned on Boards before

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/

thefly

jpb1974 wrote: »

I'm like a broken record but you can't beat the 70-200 F4 L.

About €400 used.

Fantastic lens.

70-200 f2.8 L

the_monkey

nicknackgtb wrote: »

Just looking to find out what you think of this lense. looking for something nice for taking pics of cars and them in movement also, and this seems to be the best one for my budget.

Ideally I would love the 70-200 2.8 version but thats just a little to expensive for a non professional!!!!!

Let me know what you think.

Cheers guys and gals!

This is a fantastic lens, i had this lens before i sold it for the 100-400,
but it is amazing ... approached L quality imo...

jpb1974

where??????? im trying to find one of those either and if i could get one at that price i'd be happy!!

Just note: This is the Canon 70-200 L F4 version I am talking about.

They usually pop up on places like Adverts.ie and the like.

I bought mine used for €400 a couple of years ago. One of Canon's best L lenses both in terms of price and performance.

Promac

I have the 70-300 without the IS and it's not fantastic. Really slow to focus.
Quality is about the same as the 18-55 kit lens.

Don't know if there's much of a difference between the IS and non-IS versions other than the IS itself but the one I have would be no good at focussing on moving cars - unless you're a manual focus guy.

Borderfox

I think there is more of a difference to the IS version than just IS. Another vote for the 70-200 f4L

jpb1974

There's a 2nd hand 70-200 F4 (in mint condition) for sale @ http://bit.ly/cHHdYe *

It's priced at £400 sterling but that tripod collar doesn't come as standard and costs a fair whack (assuming it's a Canon collar).

* I didn't post the full URL cos some people might be fussy about links to other such sites

rgiller

I've got the 70-300 IS USM and love it. The image quality is great, IS works a treat, the range is excellent and the focussing is fast and quiet. I haven't tried the 70-200 L so can't compare but I would absolutely recommend it. Most of the stuff on my flickr page here was taken with teh 70-300:

Borderfox

Have a look here http://www.pbase.com/gschmickle/mn_wildlife_connection
All shot with the 70-300 IS

Also here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=146426&highlight=70-300

Hearvee

I started off with a 70-300 non-IS (great to learn on but not a particularly good lens) and there's a big difference between it and the IS version. I then had the 70-300 4/5.6 IS for ages.



Killalane Road Race 2008
If you look at my sets, anything earlier than this one will have a fair few shots taken with it on my old 350D.
(I upgraded to a 70-200 2.8 and a 40D just afterwards).

It's certainly not an L lens, but I still throw it in the bag occasionally as it's realtively small/handy , and the image quality is decent enough out of it. But f5.6 at 300mm doesn't give you much depth of field, and it's pretty poor in dull light.

Not a bad lens, but if you can stretch it sounds like the 70-200 f4 is the one you want.

swingking

Borderfox wrote: »

Have a look here http://www.pbase.com/gschmickle/mn_wildlife_connection
All shot with the 70-300 IS

They're also shot using a 1D Mk2 so that's gonna effect the overall depth of field

Andrew33

nicknackgtb wrote: »

Just looking to find out what you think of this lense. looking for something nice for taking pics of cars and them in movement also, and this seems to be the best one for my budget.

Ideally I would love the 70-200 2.8 version but thats just a little to expensive for a non professional!!!!!

Let me know what you think.

Cheers guys and gals!

I bought this lens last month, couldn't afford it so bought th 55-250 IS instead and soon discovered that it was a pretty poor lens so returned it and stretched to the 70-300. Very very happy with it, it really is at the top of the NON "L" series range.
I've seen them 2nd hand for €350 but you don't know the history of the lens so I'd rather stretch to €500 for a brand new one.

nicknackgtb

ok, I see where you are all coming from, and some great feedback thank you very much.

From what I gather, the f 4.0 70-200mm is the way to go. for moving pictures, is it better to try and look for an Image stabliser on it??

Then for taking a picture of this quality, is this due to being an L lense, or how would I get quality of this standard? or is this due to post processing??


Cheers in advance

charybdis

nicknackgtb wrote: »

From what I gather, the f 4.0 70-200mm is the way to go. for moving pictures, is it better to try and look for an Image stabliser on it??

Image stabilization (IS) is only useful when taking photographs using relatively low, but hand-holdable, shutter speeds of stationary objects. When photographing moving subjects, the shutter speeds required to keep the motion blur due to the subject's movement to a minimum also usually eliminate motion blur due to camera movement rendering IS useless for this kind of work.

nicknackgtb wrote: »

Then for taking a picture of this quality, is this due to being an L lense, or how would I get quality of this standard? or is this due to post processing??

From the EXIF metadata embedded in this image, we can tell that it was taken with a 5D Mk. II with a lens at 70mm at f/22 with an exposure time of 5 seconds at ISO 800 and that the camera was set to aperture priority and spot metering.

It's fairly safe to assume that the lens used was either a 24-70mm f/2.8 at 70mm or a 70-200mm f/2.8 (IS) set to 70mm as these are the only Canon lenses that cover 70mm at a maximum aperture of f/2.8. The lens was set to f/22, presumably with the intention of generating sufficient depth-of-field to render the car fully in focus or possibly to give the lights in the background pronounced "spikes".

Because the lens was set to f/22, the exposure time was very long (5 seconds) meaning that the lens almost certainly would have to be on a tripod as it would be incredibly difficult to hand hold a lens for that period of time even with IS. Bizarrely, despite the camera being on a tripod and the exposure time being very long, the camera was inexplicably set to ISO 800; one would assume that when a tripod and long exposure time are being used, a high ISO like 800 is unnecessary and undesirable. The photographer may have decided to use ISO 800 instead of a lower ISO to reduce the noise that digital sensors tend to accumulate over the course of long exposures, but this is also improbable as a high ISO will also typically produce more noise and the photographer could've easily used a shorter exposure time, lower ISO, or both by using a larger aperture to take the photograph. Most lenses do not perform particularly well at their smallest aperture (presumably in this case f/22) as it is easy to introduce diffraction at this kind of focal length. It is possible the photographer thought f/22 was a desirable aperture to use as it would provide sufficient depth-of-field for his subject, but in reality a larger aperture would've easily produced sufficient results at that focal length and subject distance.

It can be helpful to look at the exposure and metering modes used to understand some of the choices the photographer made. In this case, the photographer used aperture priority exposure mode (meaning he selected the aperture he wanted to use and the camera selected a shutter speed it found appropriate). The set aperture (f/22) is (presumably) the smallest aperture possible with the lens, meaning the photographer probably just dialled in as small an aperture as possible, for unknown reasons. The camera was also set to spot metering mode (meaning that the camera based its exposure decisions around rendering the very centre of the frame as middle grey); because the camera was presumably on a tripod, the exposure was probably based around a mixture of the girders and the trees in the background. It is also possible the lens autofocused on the girders/trees, but the depth-of-field is so significant that it hides this presumed error.

There is also a significant amount of lens flare, presumably coming from light entering the lens from one of the overhead lights at a high incident angle at the edge of the frame, I'm guessing this isn't intentional. It also looks like the lens is exhibiting slight barrel distortion, although it is possible that this is just the shape of the overhead girder.

I'm not really a fan of this kind of photography, so don't be surprised that I don't like the photograph, but it certainly seems like the photographer didn't know what he was doing and I wouldn't consider the picture to be of high quality in any regard.

To make photographs like this, you probably don't need to use the 4,000 or so Euro worth of camera equipment that went into making this one. A low-end DSLR costing not much more than a couple hundred Euro, a 50mm prime lens (which will produce a similar angle-of-view on an APS-C DSLR to a 70mm lens on a 5D2) that costs around 100 Euro or the kit lens set to a similar focal length, and a tripod could easily be used to produce similar or much better results.

nicknackgtb

charybdis wrote: »

Image stabilization (IS) is only useful when taking photographs using relatively low, but hand-holdable, shutter speeds of stationary objects. When photographing moving subjects, the shutter speeds required to keep the motion blur due to the subject's movement to a minimum also usually eliminate motion blur due to camera movement rendering IS useless for this kind of work.



From the EXIF metadata embedded in this image, we can tell that it was taken with a 5D Mk. II with a lens at 70mm at f/22 with an exposure time of 5 seconds at ISO 800 and that the camera was set to aperture priority and spot metering.

It's fairly safe to assume that the lens used was either a 24-70mm f/2.8 at 70mm or a 70-200mm f/2.8 (IS) set to 70mm as these are the only Canon lenses that cover 70mm at a maximum aperture of f/2.8. The lens was set to f/22, presumably with the intention of generating sufficient depth-of-field to render the car fully in focus or possibly to give the lights in the background pronounced "spikes".

Because the lens was set to f/22, the exposure time was very long (5 seconds) meaning that the lens almost certainly would have to be on a tripod as it would be incredibly difficult to hand hold a lens for that period of time even with IS. Bizarrely, despite the camera being on a tripod and the exposure time being very long, the camera was inexplicably set to ISO 800; one would assume that when a tripod and long exposure time are being used, a high ISO like 800 is unnecessary and undesirable. The photographer may have decided to use ISO 800 instead of a lower ISO to reduce the noise that digital sensors tend to accumulate over the course of long exposures, but this is also improbable as a high ISO will also typically produce more noise and the photographer could've easily used a shorter exposure time, lower ISO, or both by using a larger aperture to take the photograph. Most lenses do not perform particularly well at their smallest aperture (presumably in this case f/22) as it is easy to introduce diffraction at this kind of focal length. It is possible the photographer thought f/22 was a desirable aperture to use as it would provide sufficient depth-of-field for his subject, but in reality a larger aperture would've easily produced sufficient results at that focal length and subject distance.

It can be helpful to look at the exposure and metering modes used to understand some of the choices the photographer made. In this case, the photographer used aperture priority exposure mode (meaning he selected the aperture he wanted to use and the camera selected a shutter speed it found appropriate). The set aperture (f/22) is (presumably) the smallest aperture possible with the lens, meaning the photographer probably just dialled in as small an aperture as possible, for unknown reasons. The camera was also set to spot metering mode (meaning that the camera based its exposure decisions around rendering the very centre of the frame as middle grey); because the camera was presumably on a tripod, the exposure was probably based around a mixture of the girders and the trees in the background. It is also possible the lens autofocused on the girders/trees, but the depth-of-field is so significant that it hides this presumed error.

There is also a significant amount of lens flare, presumably coming from light entering the lens from one of the overhead lights at a high incident angle at the edge of the frame, I'm guessing this isn't intentional. It also looks like the lens is exhibiting slight barrel distortion, although it is possible that this is just the shape of the overhead girder.

I'm not really a fan of this kind of photography, so don't be surprised that I don't like the photograph, but it certainly seems like the photographer didn't know what he was doing and I wouldn't consider the picture to be of high quality in any regard.

To make photographs like this, you probably don't need to use the 4,000 or so Euro worth of camera equipment that went into making this one. A low-end DSLR costing not much more than a couple hundred Euro, a 50mm prime lens (which will produce a similar angle-of-view on an APS-C DSLR to a 70mm lens on a 5D2) that costs around 100 Euro or the kit lens set to a similar focal length, and a tripod could easily be used to produce similar or much better results.

Jeese how did you find out all the embedded information?? This was a great help to me what you have just said, I am only using a 30D and 18-55mm at the minute so Im pretty basic for the time being untill I get a better lense. Thats why Im wondering about this 70-300 or the 70-200 f4.

But this is really a great help in how this person did the photo, It mightnt be a great image due to the things you have said although I just wanted to know how to get the quality of the image good, and if there was any post processing done to achieve this.

Can you find out all the embedded info from any pic or how did you do it mate? just a matter of interest for myself again..

Cheers,

charybdis

nicknackgtb wrote: »

Jeese how did you find out all the embedded information?? This was a great help to me what you have just said, I am only using a 30D and 18-55mm at the minute so Im pretty basic for the time being untill I get a better lense. Thats why Im wondering about this 70-300 or the 70-200 f4.

But this is really a great help in how this person did the photo, It mightnt be a great image due to the things you have said although I just wanted to know how to get the quality of the image good, and if there was any post processing done to achieve this.

Can you find out all the embedded info from any pic or how did you do it mate? just a matter of interest for myself again..

Cheers,

Most images produced by digital cameras contain embedded information about the settings used to make the photograph, many image-viewing applications allow you to view this information. There are a huge number of applications that do this; if you're using Windows, I believe IrfanView can do this and is apparently very good.

This photo could've easily been taken with a 30D and an 18-55mm lens. It was taken with a 5D2 with a lens set to 70mm which is equivalent to a lens set to around 45mm on a 30D and it was taken with a lens set to f/22 which you can also set your kit lens to or some similarly small aperture.

It's OK if you like the image, but you should know that it really isn't an image that requires or benefits from being taken with very expensive equipment. It'd help if you could say specifically what you like about it; I suspect the attractive aspect of the image is the reflection of the lights and specular highlights showing the contours of the otherwise textureless black car.

Thecageyone

The image above could be achieved using a bridge camera. I know i got IQ just as good from my old fuji. The starry lights aren't very well exposed. There's nothing special about it. Tripod - slow shutter speed and low ISO setting as you can get away with - aperture f/18+ and you'll get better results by darkening the blacks just a tad in PP>

nicknackgtb

This is great info guys, and really appreciate your time in taking to answer my, probably, stupid questions!!

Im using mac for my photo editing and have just downloaded the lightroom demo for 30 days. is there a way of finding the info in this at all about pictures?

Would they be using a tripod with lights to help out in taking the picture at all? Im looking to take a picture as best I can in a dark surrounding of a car but want to get the best I can with the equipment I have. I dont have an external flash, only the one that is on the camera itself.

Would yee recomend a tripod with lights for helping out in dark situations?

I hope to get out this evening and start taking some dark snaps with the info given and I thank you once again for the replies!

charybdis

nicknackgtb wrote: »

Im using mac for my photo editing and have just downloaded the lightroom demo for 30 days. is there a way of finding the info in this at all about pictures?

If you're using a Mac, you can open the image in Preview.app and hit Cmd+I to bring up an information window that will allow you to view an image's EXIF data.

nicknackgtb wrote: »

Would they be using a tripod with lights to help out in taking the picture at all? Im looking to take a picture as best I can in a dark surrounding of a car but want to get the best I can with the equipment I have. I dont have an external flash, only the one that is on the camera itself.

Would yee recomend a tripod with lights for helping out in dark situations?

The photograph above was almost certainly taken with the camera on a tripod of some sort as the exposure time was apparently 5 seconds. You only really need a tripod when your exposure time is quite slow and is likely to show blur due to camera movement during the exposure.

It doesn't look like it's being lit by any light other than the lights in the building and the lights outside, I doubt the photographer set up any additional lighting for the photograph.

Avoid using on-camera flash at all costs.

If you want to take photographs like this in dark surrounds, go look for somewhere with interesting light and experiment with it to see how it affects your images.