Santa Claus said no.....

imax

So here is my dilemma. Santa Claus said no to the 70-200 IS or the 2.8. Short on those little green things right now, so since he won’t be dropping either of those off he offered me the choice of these…

Canon zoom lens F-4 70 mm - 200 mm L

which from what I understand is a nice lens or do I go with this one.

EF-70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens

Which has a further reach and also has the IS feature

Or do I get the f-4 and then add this as well


Canon - USA - EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens


Here is a comparison of the first two that I found.
Canon 70-300mm F4.0 - F5.6 IS USM VS Canon 70-200mm F/4L USM

@70mm
- Canon 70-200 f/4L @ 1/1000s f/5.6 at 70.0mm iso100 (100% crop)
- Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS @ 1/1000s f/5.6 at 70.0mm iso100 (100% crop)

@200mm

- Canon 70-200 f/4L @ 1/1000s f/5.6 at 200.0mm iso100 (100% crop)
- Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS @ 1/1000s f/5.6 at 200.0mm iso100 (100% crop)

Probably even the 85 1.8 might get tossed into the mix.

Any advice or opinions would be appreciated. These are needed for indoor sports and Portrait work. So let your opinions be heard, Santa is listening!

:barb Have a safe and Happy Thanksgiving:barb

windoze

get the canon 85 mm f/1.8 and the canon 70-200 L f/4.

you need the 85mm for indoor sports, the 70-300 wont do the job ( it however is a nice lens)......

Some people say the 70-200 f/4 is sharper than the IS L version!, It's also light makes a good walk around lens... ( the 28-135 is ok but once you taste "L", the others dont really compare)

i realize my list leaves you short on the wide end, but if you're packing a 20D / 30D then im gonna recommend the ef-s 17-55 ( and dont listen to anyone who says its a dust collector " coz it is, but so what they all are !") true its expensive but maybe Santa will change his / her mind.




troy

Tommyboy

OK, here's what I think. All of this is wrapped around my Rebel XT body.

I own the EF 70-300 IS f/4.5-5.6. It's a nice lens and I like it. The IS is amazing--life-altering as my friend put it. The lens has good optical performance. It's really S L O W, but the IS helps to compensate for this.

Having said that, I am thinking, seriously, of selling it and buying the 70-200 f/4.0L. I'd rather have the 2.8 or the IS, but $1,000 on a lens isn't in the cards right now. I like the L glass and the superior construction of the lens.
For portraits or indoor sports, you don't need 300mm.

I would miss the extra length, but I'm certain that the optical performance of the 70-200 is much better. It's as much as a full stop faster. And for indoor sports, this is a no-brainer; you need the speed. Really you need the 2.8, but I know where you're coming from with the green backs.

I just got an 85mm f/1.8. It's nice. I'm not blown away by it's optical performance, but it's a nice fast 135mm (on my camera). It seems a good choice for indoor sports stuff.

I have:

EF-S 17-85 IS
EF 85 f/1.8
EF 70-300 IS

If I could do it again, I'd get:

EF-S 10-22
EF 24-105L
EF 70-200L
and the 85 f/1.8 or possibly just a 50mm f/1.4. The 85 is longish.

Anyway, that's my 0.02

TM

cmason

Did you ever wish you had or could afford an "L" lens? If so, buy the 70-200 f/4 L. It is the most affordable L lens in the line, and for this range, the best bargain. It is a wonderful lens that you will keep forever. It is built far better than the 70-300 IS, and the clarity is stunning.

If you need one good lens, consider the 28-135, but there are always compromises in that range of lens. For my money, the 70-200, plus adding a 28-75 Tamron is a heck of a great deal, as you can do this combo under $100 easily.

Red Bull

I have the 70-200 f/4L and it really is a great lens. Sharp as a tack. Great value for around $500. The 28-135 is a decent lens, my friend has one and I use it sometimes, but the quality just doesn't compare to the L glass.

Not sure whether or not you already have this lens, but the 50mm f/1.8 is one of the best deals there is. The lens is very sharp and has great bokeh. I suggest you get that for a good low light lens that won't put much of a dent in your wallet (you can pick one up for ~80 bucks new)

lifesdisciple

i had the canon f4 70-200 L lens. it was very sharp and the autofocus was great. wasn't enough reach for me for wildlife but other than that it was a superb lens. hope that might help.

mercphoto

imax wrote:

Any advice or opinions would be appreciated. These are needed for indoor sports and Portrait work. So let your opinions be heard, Santa is listening!

If it is for indoor sports that makes the decision very simple. Anything f/4 to f/5.6 is a complete waste of money, and IS will not be needed. That means the 70-300/5.6 is out of consideration. Indoor sports requires a fast lens -- 2.8 or better. I'd even say the 70-200/4 is out of the question as well. Get the 85/1.8. Will work for sports and portraits both very well. If you need longer then get the 200/2.8 prime. Fantastic lens and a bargain. Throw in a 50/1.8 for a few $$$. I think that is the kit you are going to want.

NHBubba

cmason wrote:

Did you ever wish you had or could afford an "L" lens? If so, buy the 70-200 f/4 L. It is the most affordable L lens in the line, and for this range, the best bargain. It is a wonderful lens that you will keep forever. It is built far better than the 70-300 IS, and the clarity is stunning.

This is my take as well. I bought my 70-200/4 L as part of a rebate deal, got me another $100 off my DRebel body.. And I consider it the LAST lens in this range I'll ever buy. For my needs the lens is fantastic.

That said, merc's got it right, indoors it just doesn't cut it unless you boost the ISO bigtime.. and even then.

For indoor sports, F/4 probably ain't what you want. That isn't the lens' fault though, it is still fantastic!

claudermilk

It really depends on what you are going to use the lens for. Do you need the 300mm reach more, or the f4 speed more? Is IS important enough to swing the decision.

I have used the 70-200/f4 and it's reputation is well earned, really a fantastic lens. I would get it myself, but require the additional speed & IS of the big dog 70-200/2.8IS (really. I do.).

imax

Thank to everyone for the replies, they really are appreciated. After countless back and forth consideration I have decided to go with the 70-200 F-4 L that I have read so many good things about. As with most decisions like this I'm sure that in a few months i'll be wanting more (isn't L glass addicting?) but for now I'm going to give it a whirl and see how it works in the gym I'm going to be shooting. Here is one from a while back taken with my 50 mm 1.8



I have pretty much been given access to the entire area from the person in charge of the arena for shooting both mens and womens Basketball (the price of admission). The gym is pretty bright so I'm hopeful that I don't end up regretting this. From what I have read it's a great lens so either way I'm sure it will work out. Anyway thanks for the input and I'll be sure to post what the results are as soon as I get it. Again I know it's not going to be the best bet for sports inside but it will have to do for now.



Happy Thanksgiving once again...............

Manfr3d

Red Bull wrote:

the 50mm f/1.8 is one of the best deals there is. The lens is very sharp and has great bokeh. I suggest you get that for a good low light lens that won't put much of a dent in your wallet (you can pick one up for ~80 bucks new)

Huh, great bokeh?! I must object! : http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/