First post, lots of lens questions

[FJC]

I've been lurking for a few days, reading all I can (I think I've made it back about 30 pages now...), but still have a question.

I'm moving from what I'd call "rank amateur" to "budding enthusiast", and recently bought a Canon Digital Rebel. I've been having fun learning how to use it, and experimenting with all the features I haven't had on my previous point-and-shoot digitals.

Anyway, I'd like a zoom telephoto lens. My current plans would be to use it for photographing my kids at play, little league games, and standard vacation stuff (zoo animals, etc). The vast majority of my shots would be handheld. I'm thinking 70-200mm would be the right choice.

So, that leaves me these options:

70-200mm f/2.8L IS - way too much money for me to justify

70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS - sounds great, but heavy, and still pushing the budget (but I could stretch...)

70-200mm f/4.0L - definitely in budget at around $550, weight is right for a days walking around - but is this too slow for what I want to do?

I noticed while price-shopping that Canon's non-L lenses look attractive, too. For example:

70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM Image Stabilized - heck under $400, and with IS

and the new

70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM - no pricing that I've seen yet

So my questions are...

1) Which of these fits in well with my "budding enthusiast" plans?

2) Is the 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM IS lens good? Or am I better off with the L version (without IS) that's f/4.0? And why does this lens list 4.0-5.6 instead of a single number?

3) Is 4.0 too slow for what I'm looking to do (kids on the move, little league), and I should only be looking at the f/2.8 anyway?

4) How is resale on all these lenses, anyway? If I bought the f/4.0L and later on decided the f/2.8L is what I need, will I get a good percentage of my original outlay back?

Thanks much, and any advice to someone fairly new to SLR's is definitely appreciated!

[CoolToolGuy]

1) Which of these fits in well with my "budding enthusiast" plans?

2) Is the 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM IS lens good? Or am I better off with the L version (without IS) that's f/4.0? And why does this lens list 4.0-5.6 instead of a single number?

3) Is 4.0 too slow for what I'm looking to do (kids on the move, little league), and I should only be looking at the f/2.8 anyway?

4) How is resale on all these lenses, anyway? If I bought the f/4.0L and later on decided the f/2.8L is what I need, will I get a good percentage of my original outlay back?

Thanks much, and any advice to someone fairly new to SLR's is definitely appreciated!

Welcome to the forum - I hope you find good info here (mixed in with some humor and sarcasm).

I have the 75-300 IS, and I wish I would have waited until I could afford something better. It is not up to what I want. The two 'f' numbers indicate that the maximum aperture varies based on the zoom factor. Better quality lenses have a single maximum aperture throughout their range.

The 70-200 f4.0L gets a lot of good press on this forum. I don't have it, and I haven't used it, so I can't claim to be an expert on it. But I think you will hear a lot of others sing its praises. You lose a little length (300 down to 200mm), but the image quality should help to make up for the loss in length. The IS in the 75-300 is nice, but this lens tends to be a little 'soft' at the 300mm end of the range.

70-200 is not a bad range for little league if you can get close, and f4 is good for daylight. If you can afford the 2.8 you will find it to be a bonus - but you will probably want to use a monopod, as it is a heavy piece of glass, and hard to hold steady by hand.

As for resale, most any 'L' lens will retain its value better than a non 'L'. The exception is if the lens is superceded by a new model that is wowier and zowier (are they words?) than the previous model.

The DO (Diffractive Optics) lens is very compact, but it is up there with the 70-200 f2.8 in cost. I think it becomes available next month, so the reviews are not in yet.

I hope this helps. Welcome to a world where your best shot always seems to be hiding in the next lens you buy.

[nosquare2003]

f/4.0 is nothing slow for kids' moving.

It seems that the 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM is expensive (seems est. $1,200).

I leave others for recommendation of lens selection as I don't have any one from your list.

[DAMphyne]

I use the 75-300 IS lens for sports all the time. It's good in bright sunlight, and the IS does help when you're trying to get your kids sliding into home and catching a ball in the field.
It's not a perfect lens, but I've sold a lot of pictures taken with it.
It's a good tool, and with the reasonable price, you won't loose much if you decide to buy a more expensive lens later on.
If you're like me, you'll keep the 75-300, and save the big bucks for a wide angle.

[msvadi]

f/2.8 makes a big difference comparing to f/4.
IMHO it's better to stay away from 75-300 lens, too many negative reviews all over the net.

Regarding re-selling your lens, check the ebay. It looks like good lenses keep their value.

[Canuck]

I've been lurking for a few days, reading all I can (I think I've made it back about 30 pages now...), but still have a question.

I'm moving from what I'd call "rank amateur" to "budding enthusiast", and recently bought a Canon Digital Rebel. I've been having fun learning how to use it, and experimenting with all the features I haven't had on my previous point-and-shoot digitals.

Anyway, I'd like a zoom telephoto lens. My current plans would be to use it for photographing my kids at play, little league games, and standard vacation stuff (zoo animals, etc). The vast majority of my shots would be handheld. I'm thinking 70-200mm would be the right choice.

So, that leaves me these options:

70-200mm f/2.8L IS - way too much money for me to justify

70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS - sounds great, but heavy, and still pushing the budget (but I could stretch...)

70-200mm f/4.0L - definitely in budget at around $550, weight is right for a days walking around - but is this too slow for what I want to do?

I noticed while price-shopping that Canon's non-L lenses look attractive, too. For example:

70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM Image Stabilized - heck under $400, and with IS

and the new

70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM - no pricing that I've seen yet

So my questions are...

1) Which of these fits in well with my "budding enthusiast" plans?

2) Is the 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 USM IS lens good? Or am I better off with the L version (without IS) that's f/4.0? And why does this lens list 4.0-5.6 instead of a single number?

3) Is 4.0 too slow for what I'm looking to do (kids on the move, little league), and I should only be looking at the f/2.8 anyway?

4) How is resale on all these lenses, anyway? If I bought the f/4.0L and later on decided the f/2.8L is what I need, will I get a good percentage of my original outlay back?

Thanks much, and any advice to someone fairly new to SLR's is definitely appreciated!

Hmmm...where to start?
0.5) Ok, lenses 101: F is the minimum aperature (the hole that lits light thru to take pic). The smaller the number the bigger the aperature. What this means is better usage in lowlight conditions as well as more ways to play with Depth of Field (DOF) which is what is and isn't out of focus at a given distance. A quick example of this would be taking a picsture of a sister, daughter, or wife in front of a field of flowers. Obvously you want her in focus but how far do you want to be in focus. That is where DOF comes in. You could have virtually everythink out of focues and her in perfect focus making her really stand out. This is just he example that came to mind immediately. So F2.8 will give you much better performance in lower light then F5.6 but at a cost, money! Yes F2.8 lenses as you have seen already cost a lot more than their F4/F5.6 counterparts.

1) That is really hard to say, obvously you can't go wrong with Canon
L glass but affording it is another world of its own. There are some good value for money lenses that Sigma makes in their EX line too. Only you really know what you want so I find it difficult recommending specific lenses. I can say too that I have used crap lenses and some of the finest glass out there available for Canon too.

2) the lens aperature varies from F4 at 70mm to F5.6 at 300mm and you loose an fstop as it is know. Basically it will be much harder to shoot pics for a few reasons in a dark situation at F5.6 then F4.0. The reasons being that with a smaller opening you let less light in and have to compensate by leaving the shutter open longer. if it is dark enough and you can't hold it still long enough, then it is time to put hte camera away. This is if you have no way to steady it. I can't speak for the Canon 70-300, but I had a Sigma one and it was well crap. That's what that $150 lens was like. I bought the monstrous Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX and the rest is history. I really like that lens, all 5 3/4 lbs of it! The down side is that is close to $2000 for the lens alone!

3) F4 ought ot do you good. I have shot a friend of mine's kid (teens) playing football (soccer in the US) and was shooting at I believe F5.6 or so. You should be fine with F4. That listed is the minimum aperature, just something to bear in mind.

4) Resale: again a difficult question to answer, as it has many factors. They include, signs of wear and tear, age, use, and who you are selling it to (individual/dealer/etc) amung other bits. Canon L glass holds its value well again in excellent condition.

5) Just a few ideas...have you taken a class in how it all works in SLRs? Have you got an books on DSLRs? I came from 35mm SLRs so it wasn't a real big deal. We can be of help, but some stuiff you gotta figureout on your own. Heck I learned something new on holiday in Ireland, that a Circular Polariser (CPL) doesn't work when the sun is mostly in front of you.

I personally advise against getting cheap glass as it becomes the weakest link and well I had some early frustration in that area. Why put a coke bottle in front of a 10D (in my case, a $1500 camera) or 300D (at whatever the going rate is)?

[FJC]

Excellent information everyone! I greatly appreciate it. Keep the opinions/recommendations coming (I think I'm currently leaning toward the f/4L...with the money I save over the f/2.8 I can get a flash and the 50mm f/1.8 everyone raves about).

No books/classes so far. I did go through the Canon online courses (quickly, I need to go through them again). I believe many of them were done by Rick Sammons, I'm considering his book "Complete Guide to Digital Photography."

[mjordan]

I have both the 70-200 4.0L (my first L lens) and the 70-200 2.8L IS. Both are the same glass wise and excellent lenses. The 4.0L does seem to be about have the size/weight of the 2.8L IS though. :lol: I didn't have any trouble hand holding it though and have on a number of multi day shooting session and one 9 day all day shooting event. But it depends on what you are use to.

Keep in mind that the IS will not help you stop action. It will help when you are shooting those dim evening games and you want to take a picture of the boy getting ready to steal 1st base. I won't help you in the evening capture a clean, sharp image of him sliding into 2nd.

I used the 4.0L for a lot of things, including air shows, fast moving wind surfers and kite boarders and fast moving dogs doing agility and herding. As long as you have good light and can keep the shutter speed around 250, you can get good sharp shots of just about any action. Below that and you have to work at it a bit, but it's still possible. Static shots you can go considerably lower although a mono-pod or tripod will help.

The 70-200 4.0L is a great first L glass lens on a budget. You will out grow it and need a faster lens, but until you do, you will enjoy it.

Mike

[cecilc]

..... take a picture of the boy getting ready to steal 1st base.

Steal 1st base?

How DO you guys play baseball in Oregon?

[Belmondo]

No, the kids really do steal the bag. They've had to replace 3 of 'em already this year.

Very sad. :cry: :cry: :lol:

[FJC]

..... take a picture of the boy getting ready to steal 1st base.

Steal 1st base?

How DO you guys play baseball in Oregon?

It'd make a heck of a picture, that's for sure. :)

[roanjohn]

Get the 70-200 f4 L..............You will not be sorry. It is also an excellent portrait lens.

If you think you're gonna be using it more on the 200 end, you might also want to consider the 200 f2.8 L prime. It's faster, approx 100 USD more expensive, and should be a bit sharper than the zoom.

Ro1

[samdring]

Welcome to a world where your best shot always seems to be hiding in the next lens you buy.

Unforgetable quote, brilliantly put

[CoolToolGuy]

Welcome to a world where your best shot always seems to be hiding in the next lens you buy.

Unforgetable quote, brilliantly put

Well, thanks, I'm glad you like it. I was on a roll, perhaps I got lucky - I may reuse it.

[G3]

..... take a picture of the boy getting ready to steal 1st base.

Steal 1st base?

How DO you guys play baseball in Oregon?

He was talking about on the date (after the game) with that hot little red-headed cheerleader he met during football season. :)

[ron chappel]

The 75-300's get good photos-it's just that they are not as brilliant as the top of the line lenses and a larger percentage of your shots will have to be thrown.
Here's some pics from the normal 75-300 (same optics as the IS model)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=368574
Not great pics but the clearer ones should give you an idea of the lens' character

The 70-200/4 is indeed a stonker of a lens,nearly as sharp as it is possible to get.No i don't have one but it's easy to see even in web photos the same razor sharpness i see in my 100/2.8 macro 8)

This choice between the 70-200L and the 75-300IS is a very often asked question on all the discussion boards.It comes up again and again BECAUSE it's such a close run thing.Better you having to decide than me! :wink:
Here's an article that compares the 75-300IS to one of the better L lenses

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/is_lenses/

[ron chappel]

The 75-300's get good photos-it's just that they are not as brilliant as the top of the line lenses and a larger percentage of your shots will have to be thrown.
Here's some pics from the normal 75-300 (same optics as the IS model)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=368574
Not great pics but the clearer ones should give you an idea of the lens' character

The 70-200/4 is indeed a stonker of a lens,nearly as sharp as it is possible to get.No i don't have one but it's easy to see even in web photos the same razor sharpness i see in my 100/2.8 macro 8)

This choice between the 70-200L and the 75-300IS is a very often asked question on all the discussion boards.It comes up again and again BECAUSE it's such a close run thing.Better you having to decide than me! :wink:
Here's an article that compares the 75-300IS to one of the better L lenses

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/is_lenses/

And as for the resale value-Both of these models will hold a good percentage of their new value secondhand,they are both well sought after.The 70-200 has an edge though

[Kadath]

Steal 1st base?

How DO you guys play baseball in Oregon?

If the catcher drops the ball on strike three the batter can attempt to steal first base. This is legal wether the ball drops to the ground (and its easy for the catcher to make the throw to first) or if the ball pops out of his glove or passes by him (making it much more likely for the batter to actually steal).

A stolen first base is a true accomplishment, they are rare but they DO happen in all levels of play.

The fun part of a steal attempt is that the umpire will call strike three but does NOT say 'You are out!' You are out only when you leave the field, the catcher or another player tags you, or the ball reaches a player touching first base. If the catcher throws the ball past the first basemen you are of course legally entitled to attempt to steal second as well.

Kad

[kje_tve]

I have the 70-200mm f4 and I think it is a great lens. It is not a tiny lens, but rather lightweighted compared to many other larger zooms I have tried. It also is very fast, doing good autofoucs on moving objects I think.

[kje_tve]

I have the 70-200mm f4 and I think it is a great lens. It is not a tiny lens, but rather lightweighted compared to many other larger zooms I have tried. It also is very fast, doing good autofoucs on moving objects I think.

[FJC]

It sounds like what I *really* need is a 70-200mm f/4 IS priced at around $700, and only weighing 3 ounces more than the non-IS version. :)

This is a really tough decision. Of course I want the best optics I can get, but that IS really looks like it'd be useful for my mostly-non-tripod shots.

[Cadwell]

It sounds like what I *really* need is a 70-200mm f/4 IS priced at around $700, and only weighing 3 ounces more than the non-IS version. :)

This is a really tough decision. Of course I want the best optics I can get, but that IS really looks like it'd be useful for my mostly-non-tripod shots.

It depends what you are shooting.

If you are shooting static objects in low light then IS allows you to use a lower shutter speed and avoid blurring caused by camera shake.

If you are shooting moving objects then IS doesn't really help you. Sure you can still use a low shutter speed and you won't get blurring from camera shake. You WILL get blurring from the motion of the subject though, because IS doesn't do anything to help with that.

Only you can tell what you will be shooting most of and hence make the decision.

[Gerdav43]

If the catcher drops the ball on strike three the batter can attempt to steal first base. This is legal wether the ball drops to the ground (and its easy for the catcher to make the throw to first) or if the ball pops out of his glove or passes by him (making it much more likely for the batter to actually steal).

A stolen first base is a true accomplishment, they are rare but they DO happen in all levels of play.

The fun part of a steal attempt is that the umpire will call strike three but does NOT say 'You are out!' You are out only when you leave the field, the catcher or another player tags you, or the ball reaches a player touching first base. If the catcher throws the ball past the first basemen you are of course legally entitled to attempt to steal second as well.

Kad

Actually he is not stealing first base. The batter is credited with a strike out (the pitcher gets credit for striking him out) and then an error is given to the catcher or pitcher as a wild pitch or pass ball. The book never reflects a stolen base. :wink:

[cecilc]

Actually he is not stealing first base.

Quite true ......
Error all the way.

I have the 100-400 L with IS and I never use the IS capability. I shoot high school lacrosse (many moving subjects) and I've got camera/lens mounted on a monopod. I don't know that I've ever even turned on the IS .....

One of the other posters mentioned that the 70-200 is a bit heavy and that you would probably want to use a monopod .... and if that's a given, you may not need the 70-200 IS version since it's recommended that if the camera/lens is mounted on a tripod (or monopod) that the IS function be turned off, anyway.

[Whaler]

FJC,

Pick up "Mastering Digital Photography and Imaging" by Peter K. Burian. It's fairly new so the info is not yet dated. Good book for newbies like "us". As far as the lens my answer lies within my sig below. Trust me man you will be very very happy. :D :D

[FJC]

Thanks all! I think I've settled on the 70-200mm f/4L. Already have a 50mm f/1.8 Mk II on the way, and one book. Not the one you recommended, Whaler - but I'll definitely check that one out as well.

Now I just have to wait for B&H to reopen, so I can order that lens, a spare battery, a hood...

Here's a quick picture I took today of one of the family cats. The whiskers look a little odd after sizing the picture down to acceptable size/filesize for the web, but they look great in the full-sized picture. I'm amazed at the detail this camera picks up in her very fine fur (detail I never saw with my old Olympus 1.3MP camera). It was taken with the 18-55mm kit lens.

http://www.condron.com/pics/fjc/tasha1a.jpg
(be kind, I'm a DSLR newbie!)

[Whaler]

By the way. . . . 2004 is an even year. . . Passover is actually til the end of the month. . . tee hee hee

[johneo]

No, the kids really do steal the bag. They've had to replace 3 of 'em already this year.

Very sad. :cry: :cry: :lol:


I had a kid in Little League that could steal. Only got caught once too. :shock:

Unfortunately it wasn't on the field. He went across the street to the small store and helped himself to candy and gum. :x

Pretty stupid considering he had on a red and white pinstripe uniform and a big # 12 on his back. Cops showed up during the 1st inning and took him home to talk to his mother. :twisted:

By the way ... he did share it with the other kids.

[randyk]

You flat out can not go wrong with the 70-200f4. All of the shots in this folder were taken with this lens:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=383777

If you take good care of it, value seems to hover around $500, its in great demand used.

That said, its not great indoors. For slightly more, many people like the Sigma 70-200 2.8. But its heavier and bulkier and probably won't hold its value like L glass.

[FJC]

Thanks, some excellent shots there, I'm definitely convinced...it's the 70-200mm f/4L.

[johneo]

I'm definitely convinced...it's the 70-200mm f/4L

Well, I hope everyone is happy ... You've just taken the soul of another unsuspecting newbie and sent them straight to "L" :twisted:

Good luck with your new lens ... "L" quality is the best!

[FJC]

LOL thanks! I'm going to get that lens, and the 50mm f/1.8 Mk II that I already have on the way, and stop at that (well, maybe a better flash soon, we'll see).

THen, no more lenses until I learn/practice with what I have...

[Cadwell]

LOL thanks! I'm going to get that lens, and the 50mm f/1.8 Mk II that I already have on the way, and stop at that (well, maybe a better flash soon, we'll see).

THen, no more lenses until I learn/practice with what I have...

:lol: The road to "L" is paved with good intentions.

I reckon the 24-70L next :twisted:

:wink:

[FJC]

Once again, thanks for all the help. My order for the 70-200mm f/4.0L USM, a lens hood, and a spare battery has been placed. Should have it by the end of the week, with luck!