UKC

I'm thinking of getting one of these,(will be used on a 550D) mainly for wildlife/bird pics, and wondered if anyone who uses one has any good or bad opinions on the lens
thanks.

In reply to Michael-H:

I used one for a while. Very sharp, IS a bit battery hungry but works well, a tad heavy and a little slow (tho IS onbiously compensates in many respects). V good value and, used on a crop body such as the 550, a really good option. I regretted getting rid of mine afterwards.

In reply to Michael-H: I've had both the IS version and the older non-IS, and of the two I actually preferred the latter; it's an absolute steal at around £90-100 second hand, one of the best ones I've ever stumbled across and I regretted getting rid of it for the IS. Build quality isn't as solid as the IS version, but it was beautifully sharp and much less clunky to carry around if you're using it on the go.

If you need the stabiliser then obviously the decision is made for you already, but if you think that you'll be shooting outdoors for your wildlife in light conditions which will allow you to use a fast enough shutter speed I'd think about having a play with the old one too.

In reply to What Goes Up:
Thanks for the replies...
Must admit I hadn't thought about the old non-IS model, I imagined that up at the 300 end that the image stabilising would be important to have, though i have read reviews in the past that compare lenses of the same size, same make, that are available in IS and non-IS models, where the conclusion is that the non-IS is sharper. the Tamron f2.8 17-50 i have is the non IS (or VC as they call it) version, and is reckoned to be sharper than the VC model, i figured at that shortish focal length it was less important to have than on something like a 70-300 tele-zoom.
I may be able to have a go with a friend's old non-IS 70-300 and see what the results are like.

In reply to Michael-H:

i wanted one of those to replace my cheap Tamron 70-300, but then i looked at the pictures i have taken with the Tamron and decided it wasn't worth the extra money.

In reply to Michael-H:

I have the Tamron 17-50 non-IS and it was superb (until it broke). Sharpest. fastest lens I had.

Anyway, I have a 70-200 L f4 (non IS) and, whilst it's a lovely and fairly light lens, for a crop body I miss the 70-300 IS. I did get great results with it and I think you would find the IS useful on a long lens such as the 70-300 (less so on a short lens).

In reply to Michael-H:

I have the 70-300mm IS lens and use it with a 550D body. It is an excellent lens. I use it for travel and climbing photography and find it comparatively lightweight for a full frame 480mm equivalent. I certainly recommend it. I use it in conjunction with the 15-85mm and 10-22mm lenses for full focal length coverage.

Two detailed reviews:

http://www.photozone.de/reviews/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-rep...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM...

In reply to Michael-H: The tamron 70-300 VC is supposedly better and cheaper

In reply to Michael-H:

I have an EF 70-300 IS for sale. (I didn't know there was an EF-S version.)

Bought second hand from Ffordes a year or so ago for £290.

Well used cosmetically, but works flawlessly.

Yours for £220 plus p&p.

In reply to Michael-H:
i had a canon 70-300 and liked it but wasn't impressed all the time with the results [often due to my bad technique no doubt]. i flogged it and got a tamron 70-300 VC. much better lens [i have used a 550D with both]. sharper, better colours and a fantastic IS system. the tamron is much cheaper also. check the reviews of both and you will see that the Tamron usually comes out on top - this has certainly been my experience.

In reply to Michael-H: I've got one really like it. As others have said the IS is possibly not always needed though in some conditions proves really useful.
I use it with a 400D body and have taken some good wildlife shots with it http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_db/#/photos/andy_db/with/2167105608/

In reply to Michael-H: I have one and love it. Beware though that some early ones had an issue where the pictures were slightly distorted if you took the shots in portrait rather than landscape view. It was picked up on one of the camera forums (Digital review?) and Canon denied it for a while and then 'fessed up and if you had the issue (mine did) then they were fixed under warranty. Not sure how you'd check though....