canon is going the right way with the new is lens .....

The lens is just not fast ...and the glass isn't the best of canon

If you are looking into the new is system you should go with the 28-135 is it is fast and great glass. spend only a couple hundred on the 75-300 III

Customer Service

none

Similar Products Used:

75-300 III, tamron 28-300,canon 28-80

Good focal range for the price. This lens and the 28-135 IS make for a good team.

I had hoped for more, but you get what you pay for. This is what I would call and 'outdoor,good light only' lens. Just to slow for indoor sports, ever with 1600 film.

You get what you pay for, so don't expect too much for this $500 lens. Good for tripod shots and good light.

Similar Products Used:

None

The IS really works and lens quality is good (though not in the same class as a Canon L lens) but then hardly in the same price bracket either.

AF hunts in low light especially beyond the 200mm setting

I have actually owned 2 of these lenses - the first was one of the first imported into the UK. Although the IS worked well, picture quality was poor especially beyond 200mm and I quickly sold it. More recently I the opportunity to buy a recently manufactured edition at a bargain price and took a chance. This lens could hardly be more different from the first one. Again the IS works well, but image quality has improved immensely and has resulted in my carrying and using this lens a lot. Why the difference? I would be intrigued to know. Maybe it is a question of manufacturing tolerances or maybe the design has changed over the last 4 years? However this latest particular example is one I shall not be parting with in a hurry.

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used:

Canon 75-300mm IS USM (I will explain below)

IS, weight

very poor AF

I like this lens and I hate it. I like because the IS is brilliant, so I can take shep photos from hand even with 1/10. BUT The AF is extremely poor. It hunts very much if the light is just slightly lees than the average.

Similar Products Used:

None

IS really works well handheld. IS gives so much more time that even Velvia is possible. I believe this lense to be comparable with twice the price lenses. It is light to carry and it is totally handheld.

It was still a bit expensive for me.

It is difficult to understand some of the more negative comments here. If you have a limited budget this IS-zoom is worth every cent. I do not think it should even be compared to the much more expensive L-series.

The improvement in my photography was noticeable when I got this lense. Freelanced in the Le Mans 24 hours race and it gave 3-4 hours more time to shoot till dark compared to non-IS.

PANNING:
I had no problem with the panning. Tried IS OFF and ON when panning - couldn't really tell the difference. I use it ON now almost always. Only when panning very fast I turn it OFF.

SLOW FOCUSSING:
I do not mind autofocusing beforehand to a point and then turning it to manual for the real panning shoot. I did it totally manually for more than 20 years - so the autofocus helps me even this way even if it is claimed to be slow. And yet, I can keep my glasses on all the.

SOFTNESS:
It was still better handheld than the non-IS & a monostand. It is true the quality decreases when going to the max length , but wow - is that something new to anybody. Never tried a real L-series lense though.

I dream of the 100-400 IS L-series, but while trying to get rich enough this is the tool for my purse. And the lense has created definitely more income than it cost. As a couple of days a year freelancer I probably could not make an L-series lense pay. This one did.

Camera: EOS-300 / EOS-30
Films: Velvia, Provia 100 & 400

Customer Service

No experience

Similar Products Used:

75-300 f4-5.6 III
OM10+Vivitar 75-210
IS-110

IS works well with most subjects

I moved from a Olympus OM4 and Zuiko 300mm f4.5 and thought this lens would do the same job (mostly nature photography – birds and mammals). The lens gives reasonable results at f8/f11 and at shorter focal lengths but at 300mm and f5.6 the results are very poor and lack detail. At first I thought I had a duff lens but the two replacements have been identical OK at short focal lengths and slight closed down but a total pup at 300mm. I’m now in a quandary whether to go for the 100-400L (which I have read of similar short comings) or go back to a prime lens (300mm f4)

Suspect I will try the 100-400L next and hope I have better luck. If your looking for a lens to take family shots and record photo's this is not a bad lens. However if you want to enlarge to A4 and above - think again.

Customer Service

Good

Similar Products Used:

Zuiko 300mm f4.5/Canon 400mm f2.8L/100-300 f5.6L (much sharper lens)

IS technology
Light weight
Zoom range

Not supplied with lens hood (which most will want for various reasons)

First of all, don't buy this lens for image quality when mounted on a tripod! Canon made this lens for those of us who need a medium-to-long optic with electronic stability. I take pictures for a local highschool drama club and the images are definitely first rate. If I wanted to take a picture for an 11x14 blowup, I would use the Sigma 180 macro, which has fabulous image quality at f11, but flunks the test of hand holding at 1/30 second in a darkened room. I have not experienced the focus hunting others have complained of. My lens is definitely not a gray market lens since I bought it at a local store. Could that be the cause of the others' problems? So, my friends, use a hammer when you need a hammer, and a screw driver for its unique contributions to home improvement. Use this lens when you need the IS, because that is when it shines. I have pictures you would swear were taken with a tripod, but I hand held them at 250mm or longer focal length at 1/30 or 1/45 shutter speed.

Customer Service

Used in the Atlanta USA area many times for other equipment, but not for this lens. Good and fast.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 35-80
Canon 28-135 IS
Sigma 180 macro

IS, Zoom length, ability to hand hold at low shutter speeds.

None

I like this lens. You can shoot at 300mm and not worry (too much) about shutter speed. The sharpness is perfectly acceptable at 300 and great from 75 ~ 200.

Similar Products Used:

None

Very light, good zoom range, IS technology, sharp across zoom range.

Front element rotates, lens gets longer as you zoom it.

I hesitated before buying this lens, primarily due to user reports about "softness," particularly at longer focal lengths and when shot wide open. I thought about the 100-300 5.6L, but finally decided that even if it was superior optically, it would not make much difference in low light where slow shutter speeds are the norm. I decided I would rather have IS to give me two extra stops of handholdability rather than the non-IS 100-300. Plus, I needed/wanted something light in this range to complement my 28-135 IS, and which wasn't as heavy as my 80-200 2.8L.
I have shot with this lens for a month or so, and can report the following:
1) IS works. It does allow crisp pictures at 1/30 of a second at 300mm. Like anything, it is best not to push your luck, since IS won't do a thing for subject movement. However, I have shot marching bands at 1/90 of a second at 300mm and f/8 while they were in full stride (with 100 speed film) and gotten great results.
2) The lens is not soft. It is perfectly satisfactory (in fact exemplary) for its intended amateur application. More than that, it is sharp in absolute terms. I have taken many photos with this lens wide open and at 300mm and have never been dissatisfied with the sharpness. (I have shot both print and slide film.) Like any lens, it is best to shoot a stop or two down from wide open, and at f/8 the pictures are really superb, but even wide open the only thing I can say is that the DOF isn't as great. If this lens has a softness "issue" I haven't seen it in my own photos.
3) Since it is light, it is easy to carry around with you. It is not a "full commitment lens" like the heavy 80-200 2.8L, and it doesn't give away much optically to its larger and heavier relative. The lens you are willing to have with you, is the lens you will use. I wonder how many 80-200 2.8L type lenses sit at home because their (non-professional, not getting paid to take the picture) owners just don't want to lug the thing around at the family picnic? I know mine does.
4) It is definitely not weatherproof, and I wouldn't subject it to rain, snow or blowing sand, but it is sturdy enough for any other situation. I recommend the hood (sold separately) for protection and to improve image contrast.
5) It costs twice as much as its non-IS counterpart. To me, to get the extra stability and lower shutter speeds, the extra money was worth it. Only you can say if it is worth it to you. I won't buy a non-IS lens with a focal length that reaches to 300mm, since it is at these extreme focal lengths where IS really shines. Try handholding a 300mm lens at 1/90 of a second and you'll see what I mean.
6) AF seems a touch slow, but I haven't lost any shots because of it. I shot some moving cars (not racing) and they came out sharp and in focus. The front barrel rotates, but that isn't objectionable to me since I don't use filters much, and never use a polarizer on a longer focal length lens.
Verdict:
A high quality optic which succeeds brilliantly on its own terms to bring high quality telephoto photography to the non-professional. Highly recommended.

Customer Service

Not used

Similar Products Used:

75-300 non IS canon lens, 80-200 2.8L

Good focal range for carry around use. I Like its IS function. 2 more step of shutter really helps. Taking advantage of its 300mm end for baby.

300mm focus is bit annoying for low light.

Originally, I was going to buy the one without IS function. I think they gave me wrong lens or they made a mistake for selling this? 300 dollars less than its price. I am glad to have this one now. Don't take this price as reference. I think the soft problem is good for me to taking baby's shot.

Customer Service

Nope!

Similar Products Used:

28~105mm USM II