The 90-300 IS USM - the hidden gem?

Psilonaught

Psilonaught

Psilonaught

Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
3,980
Location
London Town
Off to Ecuador and the Galapagos for two weeks from the 1st and after much deliberation have decided to go for the Canon 90-300 IS USM.

270-300_isusm.jpg


Having read ten's of reviews of this on Fredmiranda
it seemed like the logical choice for a sub 400 quid lens which was my budget - picked it up for 340 which is a great price I think :) and many reviewers stated that they replaced their 100-200 F4 L for this as the sharpness is almost identical but the later has 100mm more and third generation IS

Will post some samples but the real test will be on my trip - will be heading off with the following:

30D
Canon 10-22mm
Canon 24-105 L IS
Canon 70-300 USM IS
Lowepro Orion Trecker 2
3x batteries
Giga 40Gb storage backup
Tripod
4x vacinations lol :(
 
Last edited:
Just to be picky, you keep saying 90-300 when it's 70-300 in that image. Just incase you're not aware :)

Have you got any shots with it yet, or have you not got it yet?
 
oops sorry yes it's 70-300 not 90-300 :)

Here are two samples - both handheld in miserable grey light, 300mm 1/60 with IS.

Pretty sharp I think

IMG_1934.JPG


IMG_1935.JPG
 
The Canon 70-300mm IS is close to the sharpness of the 70-200mm but the L lens is a constant F4 aperture compared to 4.5-5.6 of the 70-300.
 
SDK^ said:
The Canon 70-300mm IS is close to the sharpness of the 70-200mm but the L lens is a constant F4 aperture compared to 4.5-5.6 of the 70-300.
Click to expand...

is that even an issue? at 200mm could you hand hold @ 1/60 at F4 - personally i'd take IS over contast F4. The focusing isn't that much slower than the L zoom either as I tried both in the shop with a 400D
 
Fstop11 said:
I would never take IS over a wider aperture.

The wider the aperture the faster the lens will perform in general and better under low light conditions. The depth of field will be much shallower too which gives a much better bokeh effect.
Click to expand...

agreed if the 100-200 was F2, but F4 isn't exactly high is it. Anway, I don't want to labour the point, the L zoom is still excellent, I just opted for IS as I already have an IS lens and know it's capabilities :)
 
^^Gord^^ said:
I owned a 70-300 IS USM before I got my 100-400 L IS and it is indeed a cracking lens for it's price.
Click to expand...

Is it worth my while saving up the extra to get the 100-400L over the 70-300 IS USM?

I can get the 70-300 now but would have to wait till about Easter before I could afford the 100-400L
 
daz.wallace said:
Is it worth my while saving up the extra to get the 100-400L over the 70-300 IS USM?
I can get the 70-300 now but would have to wait till about Easter before I could afford the 100-400L
Click to expand...
The 100-400L IS is sharper at 400mm than the 70-300 IS is at 300mm but it's bigger and much heavier. The focal difference from 300 to 400 isn't that much but I would still save for the 400 :)
 
SDK^ said:
The 100-400L IS is sharper at 400mm than the 70-300 IS is at 300mm but it's bigger and much heavier. The focal difference from 300 to 400 isn't that much but I would still save for the 400 :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, I really wanted the 100-400L but always had that little voice saying in the back of my mind "is it really worth the extra dosh?"

I guess I can wait till easter :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom