Is L Glass Overkill on 300D?

[jrg]

I'm considering getting a reasonably high quality tele zoom lens for my 300D, and the Canon 70-200 f4 L looks unbelievable, but is this overkill? Will the 300D do this lens justice or should I wait till the Rebel breaks and I replace it with a 20D? (Hopefully at least 2 years away?) I spent a fair amount of $ on a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC that has taken some amazing photos, so I guess the 300D does this lens some good, but L glass?


Thanks,
jrg
:rolleyes:

[Gerdav43]

Will the 300D do this lense justice

Ahh!! You have asked the wrong question grasshopper. The question is will you do the 70-200 f4 L justice?.

I will let others respond with your technical answer.

[jrg]

I see you have one of the Canon 75-300's... How do you like it?

By the way, the answer to your question is a resounding - NO - ain't no way I'll even come close.

jrg

[Gerdav43]

The 75-300 is the cheaper model and is sufficient under good lighting conditions, although, it is not a very fast lens and once you get to the 225mm range I have to have a tripod. Always have the coffee shakes (makes photography a little hard). I am actually considering selling the 75-300 and either the 28-135 or the Tamron lens to buy the 70-200 F4 L. My sons is six and plays sports all year round and the L glass would be awesome. My camera guy says it is just fantastic for just these situations. No necessarily for indoor sports but it will do for that too.

Oh! I guess my final opinion is to skip the 75-300 4-5.6. You'll just get rid of it later. Wanna buy mine?:D

[jaypie77]

The 300D isn't a bad camera, it's a very good camera; it's just not as capable in some respects as a better camera. FYI, I am still using my 300D because I've been spending money on lenses and at this point I'm shooting almost all L quality on it and I can definitely tell the difference.

[Medic1]

I used the 70-200 f4L on my 300D and found it quite good.....if you can afford it, why not go for it? Eventually you will probably upgrade and then you have the L glass already. That being said, there is no reason why cheaper alternatives cannot produce great results as well.....I would say if you look to the future and see L glass being good for you down the road (and it feasible financially) then go for it. You won't be disappointed.

Good Luck with your decision

[Icecamp]

Short answer:
No it's not overkill, get the lens, you will see the difference.
It's the glass. The glass will make the single biggest difference in a photograph all other things being equal. This was especially true with film and still is very true with digital. With film anyone could use any of the films out there in any camera body, with digital you are "stuck" with the manufacturers sensor, but most, if not all of these sensors are of equal quality especially at lower ISO's. So the image capture medium is pretty much a parity product.
Think of your camera body as just a fancy light meter/timer. That is all it really is. Some bodies have more and fancier ways of controlling these parameters, but they still have the same basic function as any body: contolling light. So as controlling light goes bodies are basically a parity product.(I am not implying a Dreb is in any way the equal of a 1DmkII, but as far as the basic function of controlling light to the sensor, it is)
So what is going to make an impact on your photo's quality? I am not talking about asthetic quality, I am talking about technical quality.
The lenses ability to resolve the image, and put that image to the sensor has the biggest impact on the quality of the photograph. A better piece of glass will allow all of those 6.3 million pixels perform to the limit of their ability.

[WepWaWep]

There are cameras and then there are CAMERAS, as there are lenses and then there are LENSES. The image always starts at the lens, the better the glass, the better the journey.

I too own a 300D but I've learned my lesson about great glass. You will spend 10x on lenses than on cameras and for a good reason. Hope someday to afford a 1D MII(or what ever is available), but I'll still need to attach the same lenses to achieve the highest quality possible.

[the.digital.guy]

I'm considering getting a reasonably high quality tele zoom lens for my 300D, and the Canon 70-200 f4 L looks unbelievable, but is this overkill? Will the 300D do this lens justice or should I wait till the Rebel breaks and I replace it with a 20D? (Hopefully at least 2 years away?) I spent a fair amount of $ on a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC that has taken some amazing photos, so I guess the 300D does this lens some good, but L glass?


Thanks,
jrg
:rolleyes:

What type of photos do you shoot?
This is the "Real" question

[Zwiz]

I will take the L lens with an average camera anytime compare to a good camera with an average lens. I began shooting birds with a 300D and a 75-300mm f/5.6 USM from Canon. Results were average. A few month ago,I switched to a 300mm f/4L IS. Oh boy, this is day and night. The 300D is not the best camera for focusing and a good lens like the 300mm f/4L will help a lot.

[bauerman]

I agree with most other people - its the lens actually creating the shot - the body just captures and stores what the lens feeds it - garbage in - garbage out.

[lkorell]

I really noticed that good lenses make a good camera a better one in this case. When you use the kit lenses or cheaper glass, there is a limit to what you can produce with the camera, even though it is a really good camera.

L glass or non L, using the better lenses makes a difference. Try the 85 1.8 or even the 50 1.8II. Those are not L but produce really nice looking images on the 300D compared to the kit lens. When I first used the 70-200 2.8L on my 300D, I was blown away by the immediate elevation of that camera from a good one to a great one.

Yes, YMMV depending on how well you use any camera, but a noticeable difference? You bet.

When you have a chance to get the 20D, go for it. It will amaze you if you have been using the 300D with L glass.

Lou

[ron chappel]

Short emphatic answer-get the lens.You will see a massive difference from the 75-300.No risk at all.
This is based on the experiences of a great many owners -not on some weird suedo-technical theory that someone may have told you-(that the 300D might not have enough pixels,etc)

[condyk]

My take is that it's all a system working together and you are part of it. The Drebel is perfectly capable and was the best thing since sliced bread not long ago. The L glass will enhance the system you have for sure, for the reasons given already. But you need to ask is the 70-200 F4 what you need. Seems many people buy it and then discover the length isn't what they need after all ... but at least they have a piece of L glass! What do you want to do with it and is there a better option out there?

[jrg]

Thanks for all the replies. I'm pretty new to this and I can understand how the lens really creates the picture, not the body. Interesting, isn't it? I do alot of travel photography and landscapes (lots of "sea" type pictures with commercial fishing boats) with the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and I am intending to do some nature photography with the tele lense, mostly birds, and also for a little more range on my other photos. When not working on a landscape, I usually find myself at the long end of the Sigma and I think a 70-200 would fit the bill nicely. Any other good options? ie Sigma or Tamron?

[Oops, I forgot this is a Canon Forum, so how about Canon?]

Thanks Again,

jrg

[condyk]

I think 200mm is way too short for wild, non zoo, wildlife and even more so for birds. My 500mm Bigma was cool, but even then longer would be welcome at times. I suggest a minimum of 400mm. Check out and wildlife and safari type threads here. A 100-300 f4 sIGMA AND 1.4 EXTENDER MAY GIVE YOU THE SPEED AND FLEXIBILITY YOU SEEM TO WANT (Opps, sorry for CAPS!!) for various situations and needs.

[mgbeach]

I use the 70-200 f/4 on my rebel and absolutely love it. It's invaluable as a portrait lens, allowing 3/4 shots to headshots without moving around. I don't think it's the solution if you're shooting birds and such, though. The rebel is an extremely capable camera only made moreso by the addition of wonderful glass like this.

[jyrgen]

I have heard some people use L glass even with film cameras ;) so no problem with the Rebel.

[ed2day]

Absolutely the 300D will do justice to L lens. I think a lot of people buying their first DSLR make a big mistake by becoming infatuated with the camera, buying up to a 20D, and then skimping on the lenses. Makes so much more sense to me to get a great price on the DReb and invest heavily in quality lenses. Certainaly there are things about the DReb that irritate me and there's features I'd love to have in the 20D, but in terms of image quality I don't think I'm giving up a great deal. In fact with better lenses I think I come out ahead.

[the.digital.guy]

The Lens makes the camera-No mather what camera you use.
If you upgrade your camera you will still have an "L" lens.

[blinking8s]

id save for the 70-200 2.8, i love my f4 to death, but i think the 2.8 is that much better...

and yeah, the lens adds more to any camera, glass is always a solid investment

[ghocking]

The only trouble is that your money will disappear very quickly, as once you have seen the results from L glass you will want more and never go back to your normal lenses. I made the mistake of buying IS before L and now I do not use them.

Canon EOS 20D
Canon EOS 350D
EF S 10-22
EF 28-135 IS
EF 75-300 IS
EF 100-400 L IS
EF 24-70 L

next on my list is the 70-200 2.8 L IS