What's the difference in these lenses?

[burkdog]

I'm new to SLR photography.

I want to buy a good telephoto lens to use with my 300D. I'm interested in doing some sports photograhy. I would also like to be able to photograph wildlife with the same lens.

The more I read about the available lenses, the more confused I become.

I've read about the Canon 70-200 f4.0 L. B&H is selling it for $579.

I've also had people recommend the 70-200mm f/2.8L. It is a lot more expensive, at $1600.

I've also heard people mention the 100-400 IS L. It's about $1400.

Now I'm reading about the Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM. It's the cheapest in the group @ $280.

What are the big differences in these lenses? I'm hearing people talk about "fast" lenses. Why is the one 70-200 so much more expenisve than the other one? What makes these "L" lenses so much better than regular lenses?

Thanks,
Greg

[kraterz]

f/2.8 is a stop faster than f/4. The 70-200/2.8 will allow more light in, and allows you to shoot at faster shutter speeds. f/5.6 is 2 stops slower than f/2.8 so if you can shoot at 1/125 sec with a 70-200/2.8 at f/2.8 you can only shoot at 1/30s with your 100-300, which makes all the difference between getting a good shot and a blurry shot. This is all basic photography theory, pick up a good book.

As for the lenses, L lenses are pro grade lenses, the 100-300 is not. Look up Canon's website - they have all the details.
http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/technology/index.html

[G3]

You know, this brings up an interesting point. Some of the questions that Burkdog asked are basic photography theory questions, as Kraterz pointed out. That doesn't mean they are stupid questions, if he doesn't know then they are valid questions. And Kraterz is right. A good book on basic photography theory is the way to go.

The thing that all of this points out is that fewer and fewer people nowadays seem to know basic photography theory. Is that a product of the point-and-shoot era? I get questions all the time from people who have rather sophisticated SLRs but don't know beans about how to really use them. They always use one of the programmed modes and essentially reduce the SLR to a glorified point-and-shoot. They want to know basic things like "What's an f-stop?". Invariably they started out photography with some point and shoot and then decided that they would get "professional looking pictures" if they had an SLR. Some don't even know what SLR means.

In the days when I started taking pictures, SLRs were essentially fully manual cameras. We HAD to learn basic photography theory.

Point and shoot cameras and fully automatic cameras have made photography easier for the masses, but I think it's somewhat of a double-edged sword. For those that start out that way and then decide to get serious with it, they've almost put the cart before the horse.

[Scottes]

The 70-200 you mentioned has IS, Image Stabilization.
There's also the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS for $1130.
And the 100-400 has IS.

IS is quite nice - it has a way of moving an internal lens to counteract hand-shaking and such - basically it keeps the image a lot steadier, allowing you to shoot a long lens at a slower shutter speed (handheld or panning) than if the lens didn't have IS.

I have the 100-400 IS, and the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS. I love the IS of the 100-400, but the 70-200 is a very sweet lens. All of the 70-200s are extremely nice, as is the 100-400.

The 100-300 is nowhere near the same class.


What kind of sports? Primarily asking indoor or outdoor, close or long distance? And what kind of wildlife? Birds? The answers may help us steer you to a particular lens, or at least mention the good and not-so-good points of each for you.

[Avarond]

In the days when I started taking pictures, SLRs were essentially fully manual cameras. We HAD to learn basic photography theory.

Point and shoot cameras and fully automatic cameras have made photography easier for the masses, but I think it's somewhat of a double-edged sword. For those that start out that way and then decide to get serious with it, they've almost put the cart before the horse.


G3 Ive run into this in the graphics industry too, with computers getting cheaper and equipped with "graphics" programs everybody has decided they are designers. Most of them create horrible designs that basically should have been thrown into the trash from the moment it was thought of. Not only are they doing bad design or layout, they are selling bad design or layout and its becoming the norm. This I think is because equipment in a lot of the creative fields are getting more affordable but the people that use them have never had any formal training. I havent had tons of photography classes but I was lucky enough in my graphics program to get to shoot a fully manual camera and process my own photo's. (And I still get horrible photos). Anyway im just rambling sitting here looking at yet another bad attempt at design and procrastinating doing anything with it.

[evilenglishman]

Not only are they doing bad design or layout, they are selling bad design or layout and its becoming the norm.

Which is great news for people who know what they are doing :D :wink:

I used to use a Zenith TTL when I was at college :shock:

[Scottes]

Not only are they doing bad design or layout, they are selling bad design or layout and its becoming the norm.

Which is great news for people who know what they are doing

The problem is that the end user, the customer, is getting bombarded with lesser stuff, begins to think it's OK, so doesn't want to pay the price for quality...

[evilenglishman]

The problem is that the end user, the customer, is getting bombarded with lesser stuff, begins to think it's OK, so doesn't want to pay the price for quality...

True but anyone who values quality will soon realise they have bought crap and will go looking for better stuff.
Those people that are happy with crap and happy with paying crap money I wouldn't want as a customer anyway.

Its just history repeating itself. It happened with DTP, it happened with desktop video, it happened with web design, it happened with computer building and now its happening with photography.