LENS SELECTION: Need your input

[Lonewolf]

My quest for a new tele-photo zoom lens continues.

I went to the camera store today and explained my photography interests as: Friends & Family, Outdoor subjects including scenery, baseball, motorcycle racing, car racing, aircraft (airborne and static display), railroad, and wildlife (larger animals.)

I'm inclined to travel light so I normally use a tripod for self portraits only since I also travel solo. I normally carry two telephoto lenses: the kit lens (17-55 mm) for my wide-angle and short telephoto needs and the 80-200 mm telephoto for my longer lens.

I like my 80-200 mm USM so I'd thought about upgrading to the 70-200 mm F-4 L USM I've been hearing so much about. The L lens has higher quality optics and would give me a sharper focus which is my primary concern. Unfortunately there wasn't one to be test driven.

I did try a 75-300 mm IS USM. I took a few handheld photos at 300 mm with a shutter speed of 125th/sec. The prints showed a definate difference in sharpness between IS and non-IS.

It seems the 70-200 mm F-4 L USM achieves sharp focus through high quality optics but would probably require a shutter speed of over 300th/sec to defeat any camera shake.

The 75-300 mm IS USM uses the Image Stabilization feature to defeat camera shake allowing shutter speeds of 125th/sec @ 300 mm but at the expense of higher quality optics.

At this point I'm leaning towards the IS lens since it gives me more flexibility in shutter speeds (I normally shoot in shutter priority mode.) Any advice from this group of seasoned veterans would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks - Wayne.

[tim]

I think you've summed up everything very well, now you have to make the decision yourself! 70-200 F4 has better optics, but with out IS the 75-300 might take better photos handheld. The 100-400 IS would beat both of them, but costs, what, around US$1000, so it's quite expensive. It could be the last telephoto zoom lens you ever buy though, rather than upgrading to it later, which migh work out cheaper.

[tim]

btw Petra has that 80-200 lens and quite likes it, according to what i've read of her posts, maybe she'll drop in and give you her advice too :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Did you take a look at the -=TOP ten=- Lens sticky thread.. ? :)

[rklepper]

I was at the dealer in Sioux Falls and took some pictures with the 75-300 IS USM.

Here is one I took. Seems to be quite nice, until blown up to make larger pictures. I took quite a few and am still not sure what to do.

http://www.iowalakes.edu/faculty/klepper/pictures/canon_ef_75300_is_usm.htm

[Sean-Mcr]

I'd have thought that the 70-200 F4 would been able to handle shutter speeds lower then 300 without camera shake. If that's the case it's convinced me further that the the 70-200 2.8 IS is the one for me

[MrChad]

I love my 75-300 IS, for IS and it's small size.

Again don't judge this lens at 300mm vs. the 70-200's at 200mm judge them both at 200mm, please.

The 75-300mm is much sharper at 200mm then it is at 300mm (a 300mm the L's don't have BTW) and the IS makes for very sharp photos for me.

The 75-300 IS USM only has one down fall in my book, slow AF, but you get IS and USM in a $400 lens, value?

Simply because of lack of reach and size I will not travel with a 70-200L. If I have to upgrade my 75-300 IS USM it would be for the 70-300 DO IS.

[Lonewolf]

...I had a chance to test drive the Canon 70-200 f/4 L USM this afternoon. Now I know firsthand why it gets such rave reviews. SOLD!

[xuxu1]

...I had a chance to test drive the Canon 70-200 f/4 L USM this afternoon. Now I know firsthand why it gets such rave reviews. SOLD!
Sounds convincing.

I keep jumping back and forth trying to make up my mind which one (f2.8 IS or f4) to get first. I would like to have a light weight lens. On the other hand i´d love to have the f2.8 with IS. But the IS version is pretty heavy. Besides i already have the 100-400L i´m very happy with.

Probably i will go for the f4 first.
Lonewolf... it´s up to you to make your decision ;)


ED