What lens to get?

cwphotos · January 26, 2006

So i posted yesterday about wanting to get the 70-200mm 4/L lens. Now today I went looking and found that I can get the 70-300mm IS USM Lens for about the same price. Looking at the feature it says it uses low dispersion glass and another special coating. So which one is better for me to get for the shootout.

DoctorIt · January 26, 2006

You're asking very wide open questions here. You have to give us more to work with than "what should I get for the shootout".

The 70-200/4 is a great piece of glass. L quality, internal focus, fixed aperture. Consider it an entry level L lens.

The 75-300 IS is an outdated carry-around. I had one. Loved it. Would I consider it a "shootout" lens? No. Would I consider a great lens to have in my bag for ~$300? Hell yeah! The IS works great, the focal range is big, and the quality is great. When I toured the Alps on a motorcycle, I brought this lens and my 18-55 kit lens. I got great photos (of course, all outdoors, good light) and carried a tiny bag.

You do know of course that the 75-300 IS has been discontinued and replaced by the 70-300 IS (~$500), right? I don't know how much better this one is, but if you can find a well cared for 75-300 IS, it is a great versatile lens to have.

TristanP · January 26, 2006

cwphotos wrote:

So i posted yesterday about wanting to get the 70-200mm 4/L lens. Now today I went looking and found that I can get the 75-300mm IS USM Lens for about the same price. Looking at the feature it says it uses low dispersion glass and another special coating. So which one is better for me to get for the shootout.

You probably mean the new 70-300/4-5.6 IS. I got it instead of the white cannon for a couple reasons.

1. Not white - I don't need that attention/stigma/whatever yet.
2. 300 max instead of 200 max focal length. Even with the 1.4 TC, the L lens only reaches 280, and is down to the same aperture (5.6) as the IS lens. IQ may not be quite as good as the L, but it's close, and more flexible.
3. 3rd gen IS. After getting this lens and using it a bit, I can safely say that IS is an amazing technology, especially on tele lenses.
4. A little smaller when packed, lighter, and takes smaller filters (less $). Sure, the L lens is internal focusing, but the IS lens is easier to stow.

cwphotos · January 26, 2006

Right on Tristan. Im sorry yeah I meant the new 70-300 IS model. The one at BH for about 550 right now. Sorry again for that. Im going to edit my post

cmason · January 26, 2006

Read this...convinced me to save up for one:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm

"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...."

erich6 · January 26, 2006

I've got the new 70-300 IS and I really like it. I don't regret picking it over the 70-200 f/4L. The IS works well and the lens has good image quality. The only thing I miss is the ability of having internal focus and the zoom is a bit loose for my taste. Nothing beats the L build quality. That said, these things did not offset the benefits for me....

Erich

cwphotos · January 26, 2006

Thanks for the comments keep em coming
Current decision RATING:

70-300 [] 70-200L
_____^

Red Bull · January 26, 2006

I bought the 70-200 F/4L a while ago and I was also considering the 70-300 IS. I thought about it for a while, but I really didn't like the extending barrel or the non-internal focus. Those 2 things plus the build quality of the 70-300 was enought for me to decide to go with the 70-200 f/4L. I don't regret it at all. I love the build quality...it's very solid and the manual focus and zoom ring feel just right. Not too tight and not too loose.

wxwax · January 26, 2006

If by shootout you means landscapes, aren't you looking at the wrong end of the scale? Shouldn't your priority be a wider lens first, say the 17-40... and then go long?

Our pro from Dover at Yosemite said he did most of his shooting with either the 17-40 or the 70-200, FWIW. But the day we were with him, I think I only saw him use the 17-40 (David, you remember?)

cwphotos · January 27, 2006

Hmmm.....interesting.....what do you guys think? I have never been to Bryce or Zion so I dont know what to expect. Can someone chime in here?

DanielB · January 27, 2006

cwphotos wrote:

Hmmm.....interesting.....what do you guys think? I have never been to Bryce or Zion so I dont know what to expect. Can someone chime in here?

for both you need a super-wide, might i suggest the 10-22 :Deal

almost a standard for landscapes *as is the 17-40*

What lens to get?

Comments