Nice range, light weight, and the IS really works.

Not all that sharp at 300mm, contrast only fair above 100mm

This lens costs nearly twice as much as the non-IS version, yet they appear to be based on the same optical formula. The IS technology is amazing, but this lens only operates in mode 1 (no panning) so it's not real useful for birding.

Customer Service

Don't know

Similar Products Used:

Canon 100-400 IS, Nikon 75-300

Adds stability without tripod; excellent for motion where no focusing required.

Slow to focus. If zoom set at 300mm, image is soft; only effective (sharp) at less that 250mm. Expensive for beginner?

Bought used as part of a package deal on a Elan IIe otherwise wouldn't spent the bucks yet. Confidence builder at low zooms; IS is spiffy and really works. The bottom line? Juries still out.

Customer Service

Not required

Similar Products Used:

None

o Image Stabilization really works

o Very sharp below 200mm

o Slow focus

o Rotating front element

o Zoom creep

o Soft at 300mm

If you don't use a tripod, this lens is the best choice for $500.

Saving up for the 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS

Customer Service

No problems at all.

Similar Products Used:

None

Image stabilization is awesome. I could hand held 1/20 sec at 300mm with no blur

a bit slow focusing

Still a good lens low light photography

Similar Products Used:

canon 28-135 IS, canon 28-105

-the Image Stabilization
-decent price

-Slightly slow focusing for a USM
-Front rotating lens element
-a bit soft at 200-300mm

I actually sold this lens after around 2 yrs. of use, I just don't do much work that requires a telephoto. Although I must admit I complained about the sharpness of the lens, a bit soft at 200-300mm. The IS is extremely useful, not a gimmick at all.

Customer Service

none required

Similar Products Used:

None

IS and zoom range.

Not that sharp at the 300mm end.

Definitely not in the same league as the 28-135 IS lens.....but still a good zoom lens..

Customer Service

none

Similar Products Used:

28-135 IS

Image stabilization allows hand-holding in 2 EV less light than a lens without this feature. Fairly small, light, and inexpensive for its zoom range and effective lens speed. Compare size and cost with a 70 or 80-200/2.8. Lens costs about $100 less than when I bought it.

A little soft (mostly lower contrast that can be fixed in imaging software) at 200-300mm, but improved upon stopping down. 75-200 is very good. IS is not effective for moving subjects. Heft and feel does not seem as robust as more expensive lenses.

I've had this lens for 4 1/2 years, and have generally been quite pleased with it. Image stabilization really works, and is quite apparent in the viewfinder, as well as the final image. Although it does not have optics as fine as a Canon 'L' lens, it costs much less, is smaller and lighter, and uses smaller and less expensive filters. If one prefers to shoot mostly hand-held, uses 400 or 800 speed films, and seldom prints larger than 8 x 10, much of the optical advantage of a more expensive lens is eliminated. Camera shake wipes out sharper optics very quickly! Some of these reviews imply this is some sort of bargain basement lens, which is not true. Only if you are comparing its performance with a much heavier and more expensive lens, mounted on a tripod, does this lens suffer in a comparison.

Customer Service

None needed. Lens is more robust and reliable than one might assume upon first impression.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 70-210 f/3.5-4.5
Nikon 180 f/2.8 ED IF

Very good 75mm-175mm.
IS works well, sharp at wide end of range

No full time manual focus; front element rotates; focus hunts in low light/low contrast.

This is a favorite lens of mine for the three years I've had it.-- It works well for me and is my 'people' lens in addition to the architectural detail that was the reason I originally bought it for. As noted, the long end tends to soft, though nowhere near as much as I had read before purchasing. If you need a telephoto zoom and can't afford a Canon L lens and you're NOT going to be using a tripod for more than half your shots, this lens merits your consideration

Customer Service

None needed.

Similar Products Used:

Canon EF 85mm USM f/1.8, Canon EF 28-85 USM; Canon EF 28-135 USM IS; Sigma 17-35 EX HSM

IS is good for non-moving targets. This is an adequate lens but soft at longer focal lenghts. Light in wt.

Soft at longer focal lengths. Slow AF.

My daughter and I shot Puffins from the same rocking boat; she using 70-300 is and me 70-200 2.8 with 2X for 400mm max. Same film. I printed from both. The 70-300 was so soft at 300 that I put it away and haven't used is since. Got salable images from other lens. This is a good all around amateur lens and it is not fair to compare to L lenses. I have done some basketball with it and got publishable pictures at around 100mm. Nice in low light.

Customer Service

Expensive and before I joined Canon CPS, slow. No service on this item.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 70-200 2.8 w/2.0 ex. Canon 75-300. Sigma telephotos.

Image stabilization. Good optics.

Is a bit slower to focus. Feels a bit flimsy although it has proven to be sturdy.

I've been using this lens now for almost a year. This is a really good IS lens. For those who haven't heard yet, IS is a technology that actually lives up to the hype. It is especially useful with a long zoom such as this.

Some people have commented on "softness" but I have seen none of this, the slides it produces are sharp and clear as are the negatives. Don't waste your time trying to analyze this lens' (or any other) performance from prints.

The lens seems a bit cheap to the touch but has held up very nicely in spite of some rough treatment and the occasional cold ocean soaking from some recent Zodiac rides. It does seem a bit slower than the companion 28-135 IS while focusing.

Together with the 28-135 IS, you have a complete handheld system for almost every situation.

Customer Service

Not used.

Similar Products Used:

Lots of 35mm.