Lens help needed!

Rockporters

I'm looking to replace my Canon EF 75-300mm 4-5.6 II and EF 28-80mm 3.5-5.6 V lenses. Being a total amateur I shoot the typical--kids, vacations, landscapes, and sunsets. During the summer, however, I take a lot of whale shots with the 75-300.

The Canon 70-200mm L lens looks like it might be a good replacement for the 75-300, but I'm not sure which model. From a monetary standpoint the f/4 non-IS lens looks appealing at under $600 . The 75-300 has worked pretty well, though the AF is a little slow, and clarity can be a struggle when movement is happening in different directions between whale and water. (probably more from my lack of skills than the lens!) Given that, would it be a better step up to the Canon 70-200mm IS f/4 or 2.8?

The 28-80 I rarely use. I would like to have a good 'all around' lens. Any suggestions?

windoze

Rockporters wrote:

I'm looking to replace my Canon EF 75-300mm 4-5.6 II and EF 28-80mm 3.5-5.6 V lenses. Being a total amateur I shoot the typical--kids, vacations, landscapes, and sunsets. During the summer, however, I take a lot of whale shots with the 75-300.

The Canon 70-200mm L lens looks like it might be a good replacement for the 75-300, but I'm not sure which model. From a monetary standpoint the f/4 non-IS lens looks appealing at under $600 . The 75-300 has worked pretty well, though the AF is a little slow, and clarity can be a struggle when movement is happening in different directions between whale and water. (probably more from my lack of skills than the lens!) Given that, would it be a better step up to the Canon 70-200mm IS f/4 or 2.8?

The 28-80 I rarely use. I would like to have a good 'all around' lens. Any suggestions?

two lenses i recommend, but not sure what camera you have:
17-55 f/2.8 IS
70-200 F/4 IS and the 1.4 TC I beleive it works on this lens


windoze

Rockporters

Oops! I currently have a Canon 20D, but plan to get the 40D soon. Thanks for the input!

Scott_Quier

with windoze RE the 17-55. This lens will handle the "typical--kids, vacations, landscapes, and sunsets".

The whale watching - you mention that you use you 75-300 for that. At what focal length do you do most of this shooting? If at something less than 200, the 70-200 lens are the ticket. These are some of the sharpest lenses made and are the cream of the Canon line-up. If you do the whale shooting at the longer end of the 75-300, have you considered the 100-400. This is a very nice lens.

In the situation of shooting whales from the deck of a moving boat, no IS will compensate for both the motion of the boat and from camera motion. In addition, IS doesn't freeze subject motion. What you need to handle all this is fast shutter speed. If light levels are an issue, a faster lens will be helpful.

Tommyboy

Given your self-proclaimed amatuer status, for the all-around lens, I would strongly suggest the 17-85 IS. It's a really good lens. The 17--55 is superior, but may be more than you need, and the 17-85 has greater reach.

For your whaling shots, why not a 70-200 f/4.0L IS?

ziggy53

Beth,

Any of the Canon 70-200mm "L" lenses would be a dramatic improvement over the 75-300mm zoom you have. The greatly improved focus speed and image quality overall make them very desirable lenses.

I also suggest either the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM (that Scott already suggested) or the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG APO RF HSM (BigMa) for a bit more reach, but both are best in good light.

For the short end a versatile Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is highly recommended, if a bit pricey. I own the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC to cover that range on a crop 1.6 camera, but the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro is a little more versatile for not much more money as is the Tamron Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II LD IF. All of these are really fine lenses.

claudermilk

I'll add my voice to the 70-200 chorus. There is good reason these lenses have such an incredible reputation. I have now used three of the variantes (70-200/4, 70-200/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS) and every one of them has been fantastic. You cannot go wrong there. The only danger is contracting the infamous L-itis in which no lens without the red ring on the end will be considered any good from then on.

I'm not familiar with the 17-55 IS, but have heard nothing but good things about it, so it should be a good complement to the longer lens.

Scott does have a point with the whale watching. The 100-400 might be a better range. It is an acquired taaste, though. I just rented one in my testing for that range of zooms and I didn't care for the push-pull zoom. Others to consider in that range are the Sigma 50-500 (Bigma), Sigma 100-300, and Tamron 200-500. I'll be renting those as well before making up my mind.

windoze

windoze wrote:

two lenses i recommend, but not sure what camera you have:
17-55 f/2.8 IS
70-200 F/4 IS and the 1.4 TC I beleive it works on this lens


windoze

ok, so it seems a few agree with my choices,
now the reason i chose for youthe 70-200 f/4 IS is because of its superior optics AND ITS LOW WEIGHT compared to the 70-200 F/2.8. Whale watching is tricky business as you know... You want tohold on to that lens and be able to quickly get in position as you run from side to side. Also Its been my limited experience that f/4 is wide enough on the open seas when whale watching. I just spent the last two weekends whale watching and the 70-200 was more than adequate. The 100-400 wouldnt allow me toget the times when the whales AND THEY DO come close to the boats. What about distance - thats why I recommended the 1.4 TC also.

rpcrowe

I have both the 70-200mm f/4L IS and non-IS models
I replaced my non-IS 70-200mm f/4L with the new 70-200mm f/4L IS model because of the IS. There is, on paper at least, a small improvement in image quality between the IS and non-IS versions. However, the non-IS lens is tack sharp and I doubt if you could ever tell which lens produced which images if you were shown a grouping of shots taken with both lenses.

I use the IS model 3-4x more often than I ever used the non-IS lens. The IS is the key to my extra use.

The only reason I still have both lenses is that I have not gotten off my duff to sell the non-IS model.

The IS model is considerably more expensive than the non-IS version. If price were a factor (isn't it always) the Canon 70-300mm IS lens might be a good choice.

To tell you the truth, even though I loved my 70-200mm f/4L non-IS lens, I think that I might use the 70-300mm IS lens more often than I used the non-IS 70-200mm f/4L.

Rhuarc

I have the 70-300 IS, and I love it. No it isn't L, but it takes pretty nice pictures. A little soft at 300, but nothing I can't live with. But then I'm not a preofessional who needs the best quality from every shot. If I was then the 70-300 probably wouldn't cut the mustard.

But I can highly reccommend the 70-300 for everyday use.