Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/22/2008 11:06:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/22/2008 11:08:01 AM EST by jgeiken]
Hey guys, I'm looking to purchase a new telephoto lens for myself for christmas. I've narrowed it down to two but am having trouble deciding. So here they are.

My current body is a XSi and my only lenes right not are the 17-40mm f/4L USM and the 100mm f/2.8 macro USM

Ive narrowed it down to these two:
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM


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


I dont have any specific subject matter I photograph. I would just like it to supplement my current lens collection. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks
Link Posted: 12/22/2008 1:16:26 PM EST
IMHO. You can never go wrong with the "L" series.
Link Posted: 12/22/2008 1:50:18 PM EST
I love my 70-200.
Link Posted: 12/22/2008 3:10:40 PM EST
My 70-200 F/4L gets the most use out of any of my lenses.
Link Posted: 12/22/2008 3:14:36 PM EST
you're asking arfcom?

get both!

But, seriously, if you have the coin, get the L
Link Posted: 12/22/2008 3:32:58 PM EST
Absolutely go for the L.
Link Posted: 12/22/2008 7:00:26 PM EST
Dude, you can get the 70-200 f/2.8 for less than $100 more than the f/4.
F/4 $949.95 at Amazon

2.8 for $1017 at Amazon

Seriously, if you're willing to spend a grand for a lens then spend a grand +$15 for the better lens.
Link Posted: 12/22/2008 7:06:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/22/2008 7:08:25 PM EST by ilikelegs]
Link Posted: 12/22/2008 7:07:27 PM EST
O course the 2.8 is always going to be the best and shrpest lens. Really though you shoudl get whatever lens suits your needs the best.
Link Posted: 12/22/2008 7:18:51 PM EST
Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Dude, you can get the 70-200 f/2.8 for less than $100 more than the f/4.
F/4 $949.95 at Amazon

2.8 for $1017 at Amazon

Seriously, if you're willing to spend a grand for a lens then spend a grand +$15 for the better lens.

1. You're looking at the wrong lens. There are 4 variations of 70-200:
- the f/4
- the f/4 with image stabilizer which is linked to above.
- the 2.8 which you also linked to above
- the 2.8 with image stabilizer

The basic f/4 costs less than $600 and is only a little more expensive than the 70-300IS that the OP asked about. The f/4 with an image stabilizer and the basic f/2.8 which are the two lenses you linked to and which cost about $1000. Then there is the f/2.8 with image stabilzer which goes for about $1600.

2. "Better" is a matter of opinion. While the 2.8 is certainly a faster lens, the 70-200 f/4 is no slouch and beats it pretty much every otjher category.
Link Posted: 12/23/2008 7:49:32 AM EST
Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Dude, you can get the 70-200 f/2.8 for less than $100 more than the f/4.
F/4 $949.95 at Amazon

2.8 for $1017 at Amazon

Seriously, if you're willing to spend a grand for a lens then spend a grand +$15 for the better lens.



++++ listen to the guy
Link Posted: 12/23/2008 8:57:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/23/2008 8:58:17 AM EST by metalsaber]
Originally Posted By ilikelegs:
Stay the hell away from the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

Get the 70 - 200 2.8 L lens...trust me.
What he said. I owned the 70-300 when I started out and it was a "good" lens. However it is not an L lens.

The 70-200 f/4 will be a good choice for starting out.
Link Posted: 12/23/2008 8:58:48 AM EST
I vote for 70-200L.

If you're patient, you might save up a bit and get the IS or 2.8 or better yet, the 2.8IS.

But between the two, I'd go for the 70-200 for most situations... however, if you'll be shooting a lot of low light settings, the IS may enable you to get shots you couldn't otherwise get... such as shooting handheld zoomed in at 1/50 second when your ISO and aperture are already maxed out.

Other than a few very specific scenarios involving required IS and/or 201-300mm, the 70-200 should give you better results.

If I were going to keep ONE zoom lens, the 70-200 (2.8 IS) would be the one I would keep. Adding prime lenses into the mix, however...
Link Posted: 12/23/2008 10:16:14 PM EST
The Canon 55-250 IS is a good alternative.
Link Posted: 12/23/2008 10:55:46 PM EST
I appreciate the input. 70-200 it is.
Link Posted: 12/24/2008 3:38:48 AM EST
Originally Posted By jgeiken:
I appreciate the input. 70-200 it is.


You won't be disappointed.
Link Posted: 12/24/2008 6:12:09 AM EST
Originally Posted By metalsaber:
Originally Posted By jgeiken:
I appreciate the input. 70-200 it is.


You won't be disappointed.



Great choice! You just can't go wrong with the 70-200 in f4 or f2.8.

-Mark.
Link Posted: 12/26/2008 9:46:35 AM EST
I have the Canon EF 200mm 2.8 L II. Great lens, very sharp images not as much glass to image through like the zoom lenses. I hardly ever use it though, I'd prefer a good 90mm macro lens.
Link Posted: 12/26/2008 3:11:39 PM EST
I really like my 70-300 IS USM, but if you have the money for L glass, do it. I dont have the funds and got the 70-300 new for over half off normal prices during a closeout sale so thats what I ended up with.
Top Top