70-300 v. 75-300 I just bought a 30D and a 75-300 lens, image stabilized. Most comments I see are for a 70-300 lens. Can someone tell me why Canon makes both? I don't know much about lenses yet...and this is my first digital SLR so it's all new to me! 70-300 v. 75-300 I just bought a 30D and a 75-300 lens, image stabilized. Most comments I see are for a 70-300 lens. Can someone tell me why Canon makes both? I don't know much about lenses... » Read More 70-300 v. 75-300 I just bought a 30D and a 75-300 lens, image stabilized. Most comments I see are for a 70-300 lens. Can someone tell me why Canon makes both? I don't know much about lenses yet...and this is my first digital SLR so it's all new to me! « Show Less
1542987
75-300mm IS is the older version and it has been around ways back. The 70-300mm IS is the newest version which has newer technology building in. I had both of them. the 70-300mm seems like having better auto focus on my rebel xt than the older version. I guess that justified the $200 difference.
1542988
The 70-300 IS is the newest version and according to reviews, it is much better than the 75-300 IS. If you want more info on Canon lens review, go to http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Hope this will help you with your future lens choice. You should really try to get the best lens you can afford to make your 30D shine.
765800
I am not sure what 55-300 lens you are referring to but generally speaking the cost of a lens is dependent on two things. One, the width of the close up to wide angle i.e 55 vs 70 to 300. The longer one would be more. Two, the f stop of the lens. The lower the more expensive because the lens has a wider range of optium focus. These are big generalities but this should give you some idea why one lens might be more expensive than another. It all depends what you want to do with the lens and the type of pictures you want to take. I take a lot of sports for my grandkids so faster and wider range of focus is important to me. Goodluck. I am not sure what 55-300 lens you are referring to but generally speaking the cost of a lens is dependent on two things. One, the width of the close up to wide angle i.e 55 vs 70 to 300. The longer one would be more. Two, the f stop of the lens. The lower the more expensive because the lens has a wider range of optium focus. These are big generalities but this should give you some idea why one lens might be more expensive than another. It all depends what you want to do with the lens and the type of pictures you want to take. I take a lot of sports for my grandkids so faster and wider... » Read More I am not sure what 55-300 lens you are referring to but generally speaking the cost of a lens is dependent on two things. One, the width of the close up to wide angle i.e 55 vs 70 to 300. The longer one would be more. Two, the f stop of the lens. The lower the more expensive because the lens has a wider range of optium focus. These are big generalities but this should give you some idea why one lens might be more expensive than another. It all depends what you want to do with the lens and the type of pictures you want to take. I take a lot of sports for my grandkids so faster and wider range of focus is important to me. Goodluck. « Show Less
1939651
For one thing you don't have the full range as the 28/300... Which is an all around lens. I would say the 70/200 being 2.8 captures great shots that you are planning for in that range, Unlike the other where the shots might be wide angle to zoom changing frequently.
92186
Hello, other than 4mm in the zoom and the nano coating on the 24-70, nothing. If u wanna get technical they are completely different parts internally but they perform almost identically. I am very familiar with both lenses and they both have their ups and downs however I am seeing a lot of the 24-70's having soft focus issues particularly wide open. This can be repaired and we do have access to fix this problem it is a hassle. The 28-70 does not have this problem. The 28-70's major flaw is the squeaky AF. But this is a easy fix. Personally I would save the money and get the 28-70.
1316304
I owned the 300 f4 and replaced it with the 70-300 L which for me is a better alternative. The additional length makes a huge difference; I also owned the 70-200 F4, a wonderful lens but I find I no longer use since I have the 70-300L. There is NO comparison between the non-L version of 70-300 & the L version. This is a terrific lens & you will be happy with it.
1936613
The 55-300 takes nice, sharp photos, and focuses fast enough if lighting is good. It's easier to lug around if taking a lot of pictures. I own the 55-300 and know its limitations, and it is a fine lens for the price.From what I've read about the 70-300:The 70-300 is a step up in build quality, focuses faster but you'll feel the weight if you are lugging it around for awhile.So it depends on what you are going to use the lens for.If you really want the best in quality, go for a fast 2.8 lens - great quality pictures with shallow depth of field and fast focusing. NOTE: Lenses are a long-term purchase more than cameras are. I have a Sigma HSM 70-200 2.8 lens I bought long ago that still works great with my d90. The 55-300 takes nice, sharp photos, and focuses fast enough if lighting is good. It's easier to lug around if taking a lot of pictures. I own the 55-300 and know its limitations, and it is a fine lens for the price.From what I've read about the 70-300:The 70-300 is a step up in build quality, focuses faster but you'll feel the weight if you are lugging it around for awhile.So it depends on what you are going to use the lens for.If you really want the best in quality, go for a fast 2.8 lens - great quality pictures with shallow depth of field... » Read More The 55-300 takes nice, sharp photos, and focuses fast enough if lighting is good. It's easier to lug around if taking a lot of pictures. I own the 55-300 and know its limitations, and it is a fine lens for the price.From what I've read about the 70-300:The 70-300 is a step up in build quality, focuses faster but you'll feel the weight if you are lugging it around for awhile.So it depends on what you are going to use the lens for.If you really want the best in quality, go for a fast 2.8 lens - great quality pictures with shallow depth of field and fast focusing. NOTE: Lenses are a long-term purchase more than cameras are. I have a Sigma HSM 70-200 2.8 lens I bought long ago that still works great with my d90. « Show Less
1316302
I also own a 300mm f/4L IS. I use it with a Canon 7D. The 70-300 mm f.4-5.6 L IS (note the L, which means professional quality lens) is used with a Canon Rebel T4i. The two systems give about the same quality pictures, but I have never done one-to-one comparisons where the same body is used with both lenses on the same subject with the same lighting. The consumer zoom lens (without the L) is nowhere near as good as either professional lens.
1630106
Thanks a lot Mark, that surely makes a great feedback for me, really appreciated.If i read you well, i think i will go for the 70-300 IS USM, provided i can be confident Portrait Blurring is solved once for all.On another note, is it true that the 70-300 has background blur (nice effect) due to some magnetic field ... ! ! and finally, is it true you cannot use a polarizer on.how much would you sell your 70-300 ?thanks for the support,Emile-.
398589
The Canon 300 is the 300D.The 18-135mm lens has the ability to go wider than the 28-135mm, which, if you were in a tight space, won't allow you to get much in a photo. The 18-135mm also is a more modern lens is 4 stop IS. It also may have auto-panning IS like it's 15-85mm brother, but I am not sure.
2176757
Planning to but canon 70-200 L but confused now after reading the forums and comments. Which one I should buy ?canon 70-200 F4 L IS USM or f2.8 L USL (Non IS)Pls Suggest
434457
If you do upgrade your lenses dpreview.com recommends Canon "L" glass for this camera. I have the 28-135mm on my 30D and can see the difference from my 70-200mm L. I'm sure the differences would be even more noticeable on the 50D and certainly the 7D. Good luck.
1790371
Yes, the two lenses are worlds apart. The 70-300 is a top quality 'prosumer' lens, intended for advanced amateurs and pros on a budget; worth every penny! The 55-200 is an affordable, 'entry level' lens and an excellent value.
2261313
The following comes from Canon's Website; "The D30 uses all EF Lenses without restrictions or limitations. That's over forty current lenses and nearly 100 since the series began in 1987! Enhance your collection of lenses, because each lens tells a different story." From this I would suspect that you are able to use the Canon EF 28-300mm.
1936610
1. 55-300 has both auto and mannual setting on it, but 70-300 has M/A and M. M/A means instant manual overwrite, M/A is pretty important feature. 70-300 is better for sports shoot.2. 70-300 has a "G" in it, which is not good : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#g, but that is new "Norm" that Nikon decide to do.3. 55-300(309$) is 200$ cheaper than 70-300(509$) based on amazon on 07/30/2011.4. 55-300(1.2lb) is 0.4 lb lighter than 70-300(1.6lbs) due to its plastic part(mount etc)5. 55-300 is slower in focus than 70-300, and perform worse than 70-300 in 300 range, so 70-300 is better for sports shoot.6. 55-300 is DX only, while 70-300 can be used in both FX and DX camera.Owen 1. 55-300 has both auto and mannual setting on it, but 70-300 has M/A and M. M/A means instant manual overwrite, M/A is pretty important feature. 70-300 is better for sports shoot.2. 70-300 has a "G" in it, which is not good : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#g, but that is new "Norm" that Nikon decide to do.3. 55-300(309$) is 200$ cheaper than 70-300(509$) based on amazon on 07/30/2011.4. 55-300(1.2lb) is 0.4 lb lighter than 70-300(1.6lbs) due to its plastic part(mount etc)5. 55-300 is slower in focus than 70-300, and perform... » Read More 1. 55-300 has both auto and mannual setting on it, but 70-300 has M/A and M. M/A means instant manual overwrite, M/A is pretty important feature. 70-300 is better for sports shoot.2. 70-300 has a "G" in it, which is not good : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#g, but that is new "Norm" that Nikon decide to do.3. 55-300(309$) is 200$ cheaper than 70-300(509$) based on amazon on 07/30/2011.4. 55-300(1.2lb) is 0.4 lb lighter than 70-300(1.6lbs) due to its plastic part(mount etc)5. 55-300 is slower in focus than 70-300, and perform worse than 70-300 in 300 range, so 70-300 is better for sports shoot.6. 55-300 is DX only, while 70-300 can be used in both FX and DX camera.Owen « Show Less
2246942
Well, I don't shoot w/ Canon, but i just tried it using a 70-300 Nikon f/4.5-5.6 VR, AF-S lens... since you asked. But why? Seriously,*I'm not well versed in things Canon*, but at least in the world Nikon, the 1.4x TC on a f/5.6 lens takes it to f/8 (you lose 1 stop, f/5.6 to f/8) w/ the 1.4XTC where it attempts to AF- but in less than optimal light, it just hunts. Usually, I wouldn't try a 1.4 X TC like this one you ask about- with a lens w/ a smaller max. aperture than f/4 (where takes it to f/5.6)... Also, depending on camera using, some won't AF beyond f/5.6 or limit to central AF focal point at f/8. hope this helps. Hopefully a Canon guru can answer this in Canonesse for you... good luck! Well, I don't shoot w/ Canon, but i just tried it using a 70-300 Nikon f/4.5-5.6 VR, AF-S lens... since you asked. But why? Seriously,*I'm not well versed in things Canon*, but at least in the world Nikon, the 1.4x TC on a f/5.6 lens takes it to f/8 (you lose 1 stop, f/5.6 to f/8) w/ the 1.4XTC where it attempts to AF- but in less than optimal light, it just hunts. Usually, I wouldn't try a 1.4 X TC like this one you ask about- with a lens w/ a smaller max. aperture than f/4 (where takes it to f/5.6)... Also, depending on camera using, some won't AF beyond f/5.6 or limit to central AF... » Read More Well, I don't shoot w/ Canon, but i just tried it using a 70-300 Nikon f/4.5-5.6 VR, AF-S lens... since you asked. But why? Seriously,*I'm not well versed in things Canon*, but at least in the world Nikon, the 1.4x TC on a f/5.6 lens takes it to f/8 (you lose 1 stop, f/5.6 to f/8) w/ the 1.4XTC where it attempts to AF- but in less than optimal light, it just hunts. Usually, I wouldn't try a 1.4 X TC like this one you ask about- with a lens w/ a smaller max. aperture than f/4 (where takes it to f/5.6)... Also, depending on camera using, some won't AF beyond f/5.6 or limit to central AF focal point at f/8. hope this helps. Hopefully a Canon guru can answer this in Canonesse for you... good luck! « Show Less
164750
It says Canon on the barrel of the lens, but beyond that I do not know. I will add that I also have an older Canon EF75-300 lens & it feels a bit heavier than this new one, but I have already used the new one for 100+ photos & it is working just fine.
759242
If anyone is interested I have a 24-70L 2.8 Canon Lens. I only use it about 5 times total. 6 weeks after I bought it I purchase the 24-105 IS Canon Lens because I shoot mostly Wedding & Party's. The 24-105 IS works much better for the type of photography I do. I would sell it for $900.00 and include the B&W; UV Filter which is the top of the line brand filter which is made in Germany. Plus $25.00 for shipping. You can email me at rjgphoto@sbcglobal.net if anyone is interested.