Which Zoom??

[lizzy23]

I currently have a 75 - 300mm f4 - 5.6 usm III lens, now i understand that this is a pretty mediocre lens and am looking to upgrade, i would like something with a similar focal length, so what would you suggest in the mid range bracket, eventually i would like a L series lens, but realistically thats the next trade, It would be on a 40D and i mainly use it for shooting moving dogs so would be looking for something that focuses reasonably quickly

 

[Chilos]

You could upgrade to the replacement model 70-300 f4-5.6, which is a fair bit better. If you can survive with only 200mm at the long end, the 70-200 f4L non-IS isn't too much more, and is the cheapest way to an L series zoom.

 

[markosparko1994]

something with a lower aperture

 

[alexhcowley]

Tamron now do a 70-300 mm VC (their IS) lens which has had very good reviews. Digital Photo magazine recently did a comparitive review of medium zooms and they ranked it second, behind the Nikon but ahead of Sigma. The Canon 70-300 (non-L) came a very definate fourth. (Although, to be fair to Canon, it's the oldest of the bunch so this isn't suprising.)

The best option is the new Canon 70-300 mm L but, from the sound of it, this is way out of your price bracket.

 

[dentedshed]

You could upgrade to the replacement model 70-300 f4-5.6, which is a fair bit better.

The 70-300mm is not a replacement for that lens unless you are referring to the IS (non L) model and even then it's not a replacement.

If you can survive with only 200mm at the long end, the 70-200 f4L non-IS isn't too much more, and is the cheapest way to an L series zoom.

Good call. If IS is a must then have a look at the 55-250mm IS, plenty bang for buck there.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Agree about looking at the new'ish Tamron 70-300 VC, supposed to be very good and has its own AF motor along with stabilisation

The 55-250mm mentioned above is a good lens, but the AF would probably be too slow for moving targets

 

[Craikeybaby]

If you don't need the reach at the long end the 70-200 f4L would be a good bet, with or without IS, although I' guessing that if it is mainly for shooting moving dogs your shutter speed will be fast enough that IS isn't needed. I went from that lens to the 70-200 f2.8L and can say that for what I was shooting (motorsport) the improved IQ and focus speed easily outweighed the loss of 100mm.

If you want build quality and faster focussing AND the 300mm I would suggest the 70-300L, although that is quite a bit more expensive, I'm not sure that a 300mm lens in between what you have and the 70-300L would be money well spent if you are planning on upgrading anyway, unless you can get a used one that you wouldn't lose any money on.

 

[Chilos]

The 70-300mm is not a replacement for that lens unless you are referring to the IS (non L) model and even then it's not a replacement.

I was referring to the IS model, but I guess it's not a direct replacement - I didn't realise they were still making the 75-300s, as even the latest version is 12 years old.

 

[milspec78]

For the same range i would champion a second hand 70-300 IS, is focuses fast (USM), the IS is very good and is very good value. A Little soft but a step up from what you have i believe

Good luck with whatever you decide

 

[FrankCastle]

The 55-250mm mentioned above is a good lens, but the AF would probably be too slow for moving targets

I agree here. It's ok as long as you get some good light outside, but as soon as the light goes or for indoor shooting/sports I would advise something faster.