Help me choose.

N

neilp18

Messages
29
Name
Neil Poole
Edit My Images
Yes
:help:
Hi folks I'm new so please be gentle.

I'm needing some help with a lens decision.

I upgraded from a Fuji compact to a Canon 40D in January.
The canon came with a 17-85 kit lens. I'm now looking for some more zoom.

So my choices are as follows:

1. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
2. EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
3. EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

My dilemma is do I go for the cheaper option number 3 and spend the difference on a speedlite flash or other equipment?
Or bite the bullet and plump for the L series. I've pretty much ruled out number 2 the DO option due to its slower focusing as the camera is used for Motorsport.

Is there £300-£400 worth of difference in image quality between 1 and 3?

Any info or advice would be much appreciated.

Thats all for now.

Neil.
 
hey,
not adding anything critical, but next month i am considering buying the 70-200 f4, as my first telephoto lens, so if there is anyone who ones this lens, ans is willing to share there experiances, would be most apreciated:)
sorry for not being help
nathan:)
 
neilp18 said:
:help:
Hi folks I'm new so please be gentle.

I'm needing some help with a lens decision.

I upgraded from a Fuji compact to a Canon 40D in January.
The canon came with a 17-85 kit lens. I'm now looking for some more zoom.

So my choices are as follows:

1. EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
2. EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
3. EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

My dilemma is do I go for the cheaper option number 3 and spend the difference on a speedlite flash or other equipment?
Or bite the bullet and plump for the L series. I've pretty much ruled out number 2 the DO option due to its slower focusing as the camera is used for Motorsport.

Is there £300-£400 worth of difference in image quality between 1 and 3?

Any info or advice would be much appreciated.

Thats all for now.

Neil.
Click to expand...



most people will say get the best you can afford..

i agree..

question is do you really need the is... could you get away with the f/4...

and just knock the iso up :shrug:


md(y)
 
NeilP,

I use a 70-300 IS USM for work and considering it's a £300 lens, it really is a revelation compared to the 'standard' 70-300mm Canon lenses I've owned in the past. Image quality is superb and for the money, there's little to touch it. Okay, the max aperture isn't great (f/5.6 at the long end) so you don't get the same shallow DOF as an f/4 or f/2.8 optic, but for low light, the IS system is truly a massive help to the photographer, especialy on dull days (which you're gonna get working outside).

The DO optic is supposed to be good but it's a pricey piece of kit and you're only really getting a more compact lens for that extra £350.

The 70-200 IS is obviously faster in the aperture and will undoubtedly give better optical performance but it's £700 and obviously doesn't have the focal range of the others. Still a great lens though.

I took this shot at a show using the 70-300mm IS USM. Settings were ISO 640, f/5.6, 1/100th @ 200mm handheld and although my old 30D can't handle grain/noise very well, the shot is perfectly useable at A4. It's not the best shot in the world by anymeans but I would have never got that result using a standard 70-300mm, especially at that shutter speed.

IMG_9268.jpg



fallen_mathi, a guy at work has the 70-200mm f/4 and he rates is very, very, very highly. Mind you, he's trading it in for a 70-200mm IS f/2.8... rich barsteward!!

A good website to check lens reviews is www.photozone.de
 
Cheers Folkes.(y)

Still pretty much undecided though.:bang:

Neil.:D
 
Im quite new to this too as yet I havent got any of the above, but in the next couple of weeks im gonna get the 70-200 f4. The only reason that im going for that one is cos ive had so many good reviews and wright ups!
 
ok, dont rule out the sigma 70-200 f2.8, a cheaper alternative, which supposedly has similar quality to the L glass, but no IS. also the 50-150 sigma, also f2.8. considerably cheaper but will only fit on cropped cameras, again quality similar to the L but slightly shorter. but wouldnt you be slightly better off with the canon 100-400L for the extra range used for motorsport? not done any, but id have thought would give closer action.
 
fletch5 said:
ok, dont rule out the sigma 70-200 f2.8, a cheaper alternative, which supposedly has similar quality to the L glass,
Click to expand...

The Canon 70-200 F2.8 is an L glass.
 
fletch5 said:
ok, dont rule out the sigma 70-200 f2.8, a cheaper alternative, which supposedly has similar quality to the L glass, but no IS. also the 50-150 sigma, also f2.8. considerably cheaper but will only fit on cropped cameras, again quality similar to the L but slightly shorter. but wouldnt you be slightly better off with the canon 100-400L for the extra range used for motorsport? not done any, but id have thought would give closer action.
Click to expand...

Probably would be but price is a no no at my stage of photograghy.
Also need to kep in mind portability as the 100-400 L is a bit big and heavy.

Thinking now of going down the route of the 70-200L and using an extender for motorsport. But need to get more info on that idea.

Neil.:D
 
The 70-200L is the best lens out of that line up, but could be considered too short for motorsport. It will accept a x1.4 TC but with loss of IQ and focussing speed.

It will blow consumer 70-300 lenses out of the water.

100-400L will give the reach.

Other lenses to consider would be Sigma 100-300 f4 EX. I beleive this would be white and L badged if Canon made it. Good for motorsport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top