Which one?

[Mav2006]

Hello,

I was looking at these two lens on the weekend. My questions are

1) Is Image Stabiliser worth the extra? I know it will depend on circumstances, image, speed etc - but as a general point.

2) Is F4-5.6 - good enough. I tend to use my current lens most at 3.5, would I lose anything going to 4...?

http://www.jessops.com/online.store...non/EF 75-300mm f45.6 USM MK3-12278/Show.html

http://www.jessops.com/online.store...non/EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM-30795/Show.html

 

[akr]

Hi

I have no experience of those lenses or IS so I'll leave others to reply. I did have the 100-300 and I did find it went up the f4.5-5.6 fairly quickly, and if you are getting the lens for the extra reach I guess you'll be at 5.6 more often than not.

I ended up getting a second hand 70-200 as I could get f4 at 200mm.

Re the IS I guess it really does depend on the circumstance though, if you give some guidance on the general type of photography yo like it may help people better answer you.

Good luck with purchase!

 

[Euan]

I have the 70-300 IS and think its a good lens, the IS is a godsend at times. The lens can be a bit soft at 300 (mine anyway). I think its quite well built and sturdy not up to L glass but its nowhere near the price.

Im sure you will find it cheaper than Jessops anyway by having a look on camerapricebuster.

 

[HoppyUK]

There's a lot more difference between those two lenses than IS. The IS lens is really very good indeed.

And yes, IS is well worth having. The difference between f/3.5 and f/4 is one third of a stop - next to nothing. Just increase the ISO a fraction if it bothers you.

If you find yourself at lowest f/number most of the time, you should consider why. And maybe think about an f/2.8 lens or a camera with better high ISO performance.

Edit: it's been said often enough before, but IS only reduces camera shake, it cannot reduce subject movement.

 

[andyred]

I would go for the 70-300 IS lens, it is worth the extra, I'm very pleased with mine

A link for starting to look at prices

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod60.html

 

[Mav2006]

Thanks

The reason use lower f numbers is that I like the blurred background....

 

[HoppyUK]

Thanks

The reason use lower f numbers is that I like the blurred background....

Ah right, then maybe you should look at a lower f/number lens. It's an expensive habit though.

 

[8utters]

The 75-300 is a terrible lens, described on numerous occasions as the worst lens ever made by Canon. Avoid.

 

[singlespeed]

Depending on what lens(es) you already have, would a 70-200 f2.8 be more use as it would definately give oportunities for blured backgrounds, without the huge prices of faster 300mm lenses. The added advantage is a 1.4x (or even 2x) converter could be added later to give some extra reach whilst maintaining a constant aparture and still being faster than the lenses you mentioned.

The downside is 200mm f2.8 is probably going to be heavier and larger than a 300 f4-5.6.