Canon EF 70-300 IS

[SAWYER]

I recently bought a D40x with a 70-300 Vr and sold the body. I listed the lens for sale and a guy messaged me offering to trade the Canon EF 70-300 IS for it. I use a Canon and was thinking about doing this and just selling my current 55-250 IS. Would you do the trade? I have no use for the Nikon lens any more. I am either gonna test my luck on ebay or trade for the Canon lens.

 

[corkyg]

If you trade, you have a useful lens. Anything else is betting on the come. I prefer the bird in hand to the bird in the bush!

 

[Kirby64]

The 55-250 IS is a better quality lens than the 70-300... I see no point in trading to get another lens with inferior image quality with VERY little additional range.

 

[jpeyton]

How much did you end up selling the D40x for?

The Canon 70-300IS isn't worth the trade.

 

[Madwand1]

Maybe some of the posters are confusing this lens with the older 75-300 IS or some other lens? Here's what photozone said about it:

The performance of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS came as a total surprise. Unlike its predecessor the lens is capable to produce a very high performance throughout the zoom range without the significant drop in quality at 300mm typical for most consumer grade lenses in this range. It seems as if the new UD element helps to lift the optical quality significantly. Distortions, CAs as well as vignetting are also very respectable. So in terms of optical quality the EF 70-300mm IS can be almost described as a hidden Canon L lens.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-...is-test-report--review

Their optical results however don't make it much better than the AF-S 55-250 when you look at the comparable 8MP test results. If you compare the 15 MP 55-250 results to the 8 MP 70-300 results, the 55-250 actually looks better, but this is not a fair comparison.

The 70-300 has full-frame compatibility, a metal mount, and USM / better AF performance to its advantage, and is priced similarly to the Nikon in retail. I don't see what you lose in trading the Nikon for a lens you can use with your current camera. You could then decide between the 55-250 and the 70-300 based on your own results.

 

[ElFenix]

the IS may also be more durable than the 55-250's, which has reported issues.

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: Madwand1
I don't see what you lose in trading the Nikon for a lens you can use with your current camera. You could then decide between the 55-250 and the 70-300 based on your own results.

That is what I was alluding to yesterday. Any lens that works on your camera is better than any lens that won't work on same camera.

 

[SAWYER]

I ended up selling the body for 300

 

[soydios]

I only have a few minutes of hands-on experience with the Canon 70-300mm IS USM, but it seems to be at exact feature and price parity with the Nikon AF-S 70-300mm VR (fast focusing, full frame, optical stabilization), so even trade I guess.

 

[theYipster]

I have owned both the Canon 70-300 IS and the Nikon 70-300 VR. They are comparable in range and both have very good image quality for the price, although in my opinion the Nikon is a decidedly better lens.

From an IQ perspective, the Canon is a bit more consistent out to 300mm, while the Nikon is outstanding up to about 230-250mm and then drops off a bit. However, the Nikon below 250mm delivers a sharpness and punch that was never obtainable on my Canon. Furthermore, and more importantly, the front element of the Canon rotates during focus, while the Nikon focuses internally. This is a big deal if you use circular polarizers, as the rotating front on the Canon makes CPs very difficult to work with. The build quality of the Nikon is also superior -- the materials used feel better and the zoom ring is significantly stiffer. The Nikon also comes with a hood and pouch, while the Canon does not. Lastly, the Nikon has a newer and a bit more advanced VR system. The Nikon offers up to four stops of hand-holding (equivalent to the Canon 70-200 F/4L IS,) whereas the 70-300 IS offers up to three stops.

If you have a few extra hundred dollars, I would sell the Nikon 70-300 VR for as much as I can get and purchase a Canon 70-200 F/4L IS instead, which is better optically than both 70-300s (and is of significantly better build quality than the Canon 70-300 IS.) I purchased the Canon 70-300 IS before the 70-200 F/4L IS existed, and if I were to go back to Canon today I would not buy the 70-300 again. If Nikon had a 70-200 F/4 VR that was as good as Canon's, I probably wouldn't have the 70-300 VR either -- but I am considerably happier with the 70-300 VR than I was with the 70-300 IS.

 

[idiotekniQues]

i have had this lens for 3 years. definitely a great deal if you like reach and sharp shots.

i too read the photozone review posted above before i bought this lens. too many people spew ignorant information that this lens is a POS, when they are really talking about the previous 75-300 model.

yes the rotating front element is annoying, but unless you use a polarizer a LOT with this lens, it shouldn't be a big issue at all.

considering the range you get, the sharpness, the convenience of portability, plus amazing IS, it's worthy of consideration if you are a canon shooter.

since i find myself most often with this lens at 250-300mm, it is preferrable to me vs the 70-200f4L lens.

if you fall more often at 200mm or less, id go with the L