Tele-Zoom lens for 10D?

[amihai]

I'm going to purchase a new tele-zoom lens for my Canon 10D.
I'm on a limited budget so I was thinking of getting the Canon 75-300 IS USM which sells for around $400 (yes, the 70-300 DO lens if I had the money...)
I know that there are several lenses from Sigma, but I like the USM feature on the Canon lenses which give me great response time and fast focus.
Any recommendations pro-con the 75-300?
Any other lenses that you think I should consider?

[Andy_T]

Do a forum search, there's about 50 threads with this discussion.

Other than that, the 75-300 will not be the sharpest lens you'll ever use.
Consider the 70-200/4 L ($ 600). If you need to have the 300 mm, also get the 1.4 TCon.

The Sigma 100-300/4 EX is supposed to be a very sharp 300 mm lens. Downside (apart from the price) is the enormous weight and size.

Both of these lenses are supposed to be sharper and less expensive than the 75-300 DO.

Best regards,
Andy

[Boosting1Bar]

I'm going to purchase a new tele-zoom lens for my Canon 10D.
I'm on a limited budget so I was thinking of getting the Canon 75-300 IS USM which sells for around $400 (yes, the 70-300 DO lens if I had the money...)
I know that there are several lenses from Sigma, but I like the USM feature on the Canon lenses which give me great response time and fast focus.
Any recommendations pro-con the 75-300?
Any other lenses that you think I should consider?

You might want to consider the 70-200 f/4L. I had the 70-300 and I found that it focused quite slow and wasn't very sharp unless stopped down quite a bit. My first lens was the 28-135 USM IS and I thought the USM and IS were great. I expected the same results from the 70-300 but the USM doesn't focus nearly as fast nor is the IS as functional as it is in the 28-135. I honestly couldn't recommend the 70-300 as I think you'd be much better off to save up the extra $150 or so and get the 70-200. If not I'm sure there is a Sigma or Tamron lens in that same general focal length that would be better.

[PacAce]

I have to agree with the other two folks about the 70-200 f/4 being a much better choice if you can swing the extra $200.00. If you can, the extra cost really will be worth it.

[ron chappel]

This is a constant question on the net.

Good points of the 75-300 IS are: image stabilization , 300mm length
Bad points:Average optics ,slow focus

and the 70-200/4: Stunning optics,fast focus & good build
Bad:need a TC to get close to 300mm,no image stabilization


Sigma 100-300/4...good points : very good optics (supposedly,there's very little evidence for or against online)

[Olegis]

From what I've seen, the Sigma 100-300 f/4 is highly regarded for it's AF speed and optical quality. It costs $785 at DeltaInternational.com (http://www.deltainternational.com/store/Item_SGL100%2D300C.htm).
Check out the reviews :

Naturephotographers (http://www.naturephotographers.net/je1001-2.html)
FM Forums (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=103&sort=7&thecat=29)
PhotographyReview (http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_85165_3128crx.aspx)

[Steven M. Anthony]

What about the Canon EF 28 - 200 f/3.5 - 5.6 USM? I have one and have been happy with it--although maybe you are looking for the tele more than the wide angle...

[Andy_T]

Optically, a good 28-200 lens (7x zoom) that is sharp not only in the middle (135 mm), but also on the extremes (28 mm and 200 mm) is a lot more difficult to construct than a 70-200 (3x zoom) lens.

The advantage of not having to change lenses can be more than set off by the loss in image quality ... here the question is what your requirements are.

If you take a look at the lens tests at http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html, you'll realize that the 70-200 L is rated a lot better than the other 2 lenses:

Canon EF 4.0 70-200mm USM L 4.17 (3) = very-good
Canon EF 4-5.6 75-300mm USM IS 2.62 (5) = sub-average
Canon EF 3.5-5.6 28-200mm USM 2.38 (2) = sub-average

Of course, these are subjective reviews (number in brackets denotes number of reviews giving average), but they are very much in line with other tests.

Best regards,
Andy

[MrChad]

I'm very happy with my 75-300mm f4.0-5.6 IS USM.
[I'd get the hood with the 75-300mm also.]

I've shot some very sharp photos at 200mm length from the back of the church without flash for my brother-in-law's wedding.

I've had fairly good results at 300mm stopped down in the sun at Mid-Ohio sportcar course.

I do have to get a bit creative for friday night HS football games under the lights with my old Vivitar flash, but I don't think the 70-200mm f4L would inprove that at all. Surprisingly the IS actually works well for this.

I paid about $400 for this lens from BHphoto, for the money spent I love the lens. My buddy has the awesome 70-200mm f2.8L on his Rebel-D, from time-to-time he sure wishes he had the IS model. If he isn't fast on the shutter speeds at the long end it can be hard to hand hold.

Plus, I like that it's a black lens. I think I can sneak around with this much better then if I had the L glass. Not that I wouldn't mind some white lenses :D But, I like black color much better.