I am considering shelling out for a first Telephoto zoom lens, because, quite frankly, at the moment, my current lenses don't exactly offer much(Max. 90mm). At the moment I don't partake much in photog of High-speed/nature subjects, but who knows what the future holds...
I am considering the following and was wondering if anyone has any thoughts/comments on them and details on performance/image quality, or, indeed alternative lens suggestions:
Canon EF 75-300mm f4/5.6 USM MK3 - £240 - This is obviously my first choice as a somewhat unskilled photographer(and, indeed Pricewise) - But would like to know what people think of it...
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - £400 - in here because it has the obvious advantage of IS(But'll take a couple of months of saving to purchase).
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens - £500 - This was actually my second choice, simply because it was faster compared to the other two, but I would have to save up a little longer(Doesn't sound like much to some, but I don't have much).
Of the three, the one to avoid is the 75-300. It's quite soft at the long end, so you're forced to stop down from an already slow f/5.6, which sort of limits its usefulness.
The standout of the bunch is the 70-200 f/4. It's one of the best zooms around, period.
I've no comments on the 70-300 IS; no experience, direct or indirect.
I'm very pleased with my 70-300, and I have played with a 70-200. My personal feeling is that once you get up into that range you need IS, and its more important than the L rating. (Cowers expecting to get pummeled for dissing an "L" lens)
I'm very pleased with my 70-300, and I have played with a 70-200. My personal feeling is that once you get up into that range you need IS, and its more important than the L rating. (Cowers expecting to get pummeled for dissing an "L" lens)
LOL I share your opinion and I also love my 70-300 and have tried the 70-200F4L but still went with the former. On some reviews they also call the 70-300 a hidden L glass ;) of which the quality is verry close to the 70-200L. If you can though try to rent both and make up your own opinion.
I got the 70-200 F4 new from ebay for £357 (PM me if you want the seller - he's a good bloke to deal with). Both image and build quality are outstanding. A friend had the older verison of the 70-300IS and it was a bit of a stinker, quite soft at 300. But I've heard nothing but good things about the newer version. Like the man said, if you could try before you buy that would be ideal!
I got the 70-200 F4 new from ebay for £357 (PM me if you want the seller - he's a good bloke to deal with). Both image and build quality are outstanding. A friend had the older verison of the 70-300IS and it was a bit of a stinker, quite soft at 300. But I've heard nothing but good things about the newer version. Like the man said, if you could try before you buy that would be ideal!
I just bought a 70-200 F/4 from Amazon for $480 -- but the rebates are US-only I believe.
If you'd like to get something now, check out the Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Macro. It's image quality isn't perfect, especially on the long end (where it gets soft and CA becomes a big problem), but at $100 including shipping it is a great way to see if you are interested in telephoto. The resale value is quite good, so you could grab one, use it for a few months, and then upgrade it and get your money back out later.
Many thanks for the info everyone. I think I may save for a bit and go for the 70-200, Just for the fact that I've heard so many good things about it, and I can't get over the F/4 aperture.
I'm already building up a list of what I want after that... The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS Looks quite nice, but that'll need many, many months of saving up... Or maybe something else...
I'd really love to go for the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM But at 1500 quid, that's way out of my range... That would take some major saving up... and I'd probably be afraid to use it outside...
Yeah, the 70-200 is nice, but it's also 750 quid. That's 250 more than the Canon, I know it's a F/2.8, but at the moment, it's just a touch out of range... But thanks for the recommendation. As to the other two, they're even more, @ £780 ea. I think they are a bit much.
Yeah, the 70-200 is nice, but it's also 750 quid. That's 250 more than the Canon, I know it's a F/2.8, but at the moment, it's just a touch out of range... But thanks for the recommendation. As to the other two, they're even more, @ £780 ea. I think they are a bit much.
Fan of Sigmas?
Sorry, didn't pay attention to the prices of the others. Just threw the suggestions in there.
I have the Sigma 15-30 and Sigma 70-200...so yeah, I am a fan. Minolta lenses are pretty good, but getting hard to find and Sony's lenses are way overpriced. But, I don't regret those choices at all.
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - £400 - in here because it has the obvious advantage of IS(But'll take a couple of months of saving to purchase).
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens - £500 - This was actually my second choice, simply because it was faster compared to the other two, but I would have to save up a little longer(Doesn't sound like much to some, but I don't have much).
Another vote for the 70-300 IS out of these two.
IMO, if you want to go for an "L" get the IS version - but then it's quite a bit more money. IS is just too good to miss on a telephoto. Of course it's your call, and the L is better built and probably a bit better IQ as well. But high-quality blurs are still rejects...
The 70-300 is only 2/3 stop slower at 200mm - and you get far more than that back with the IS. And 100mm more range to boot.
I have both the 70-200 and the 70-300. The image quality is far superior on the L lense (go figure)but shots from the 70-300 aren't too bad. I would buy the L glass unless you think you'll be needing that extra 100mm of reach.
I have both the 70-200 and the 70-300. The image quality is far superior on the L lense (go figure)but shots from the 70-300 aren't too bad. I would buy the L glass unless you think you'll be needing that extra 100mm of reach.
At the moment, anything over 90mm would be beneficial. So the F/4 is better, even without the IS?
I have both the 70-200 and the 70-300. The image quality is far superior on the L lense (go figure)but shots from the 70-300 aren't too bad. I would buy the L glass unless you think you'll be needing that extra 100mm of reach.
At the moment, anything over 90mm would be beneficial. So the F/4 is better, even without the IS?
Again it depends on what you intend to do with it. Only times I've used my 70-200 have been in situations with plenty of light (outdoor, sunny) so shutter speeds were very high or else I tripod mount it. The lack of IS didn't matter (also when I bought it there was no IS version).
On the other hand, shooting whales on a bouncy zodiak - both the extra reach and Is of the 300mm were certainly welcome. But I've been in that situation exactly one time in over 34 years...
I have the 70-300 IS also, and i dont think i could live without the IS at those zooms. Though with myself, i wanted the extra 100mm for sports and nature shots, i'm glad i got one with IS.. makes things MUCH easier when you cant lug a tripod or when its not high noon with a bright sun... i cant complain for the clarity either, but i've honestly never used a 70-200 to compare.
