75-300 USM IS or 70-200(f4) USM L

[Big Al51]

Hi

I'd appreciate advice regarding the above Canon lenses for my EOS 300D. I've got a trip to Botswana organised for next Easter and I'm wanting a good lens for wildlife photography.

My previous digital camera, (Olympus with 10x zoom), had image stabilisation, and produced some excellent results when photographing wildlife.

What I wonder is, considering I'll be shooting from the back of a landrover and so almost certainly handheld, is the Image Stabalisation a must?

The 75-300 USM IS gives greater zoom and image stabilisation - but would I be better off with the 70-200 (f4) USM L? Would this allow me to get in close enough?

Any practical tips for supporting camera/lens to get good sharp shots appreciated.

http://www.dcmag.co.uk/t.gif http://www.dcmag.co.uk/forum/images/email.gif (http://www.dcmag.co.uk/forum/sendmessage.asp?UTN=8444&URN=4&SP=&V=5&UMN=105882)

[Miyamoto Musashi]

Keep in mind that the 70-200 will be like 112-320mm on your rebel. I would think you'd make good use of the IS, shooting out of the back of the vehicle. The 70-200mm f/4L has better glass, but it would need a tri-pod more than the IS.

[mikesd]

If price is not an issue the 70-200 kicks the 75-300's butt. Add this and you are ready to roll http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=220456&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

[condyk]

Get a beanbag to support the lens and you can get some great vehicle based shots via the windows. Get the guy to turn the engine off too: a Land Rover can rattle a bit!!!!

The 70-200mm has the quality and not the length. The IS jobbie has neither to be honest, but it will get you more shots just having the extra 100mm and IS will help too. It may be acceptable to you. 400mm plus is good. I'll take either my 100-300mm f4 with 1.4x TCon or, if I am flush, trade it for a 100-400mm L IS, which is perhaps the ideal practical safari lens. Sigma 80-400mm OS would be really good too and cheaper than the Canon IS. Depends on your real budget.

With a 200-300mm range you will get lots of Zebra, buck, Elephant shots, maybe some lazy Lions, but the more interesting animals often stay back unless you're very lucky. It's good to just sit and have the length to get the shy and more interesting animals too. The bird life is amazing there. Again, less than 400mm and you will really struggle.

I've been all over Southern Africa but not much in Botswana, though I did get my 4x4 stuck in sand on the Botswana side of the Kalihari for several hours. Eventually we got hauled out by the most georgeous women in a Land Rover who was obviously a film maker or photographer judging from her masses of carefully boxed up gear in the back. I still think she was a mirage. I'm heading there early next year ... first up to Northern Namibia, which I love, and then down through Botswana to Jo'burg. Maybe I'll meet her again :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Music to my eyes]

In actual image quality the 70-200 f4 L will be a super sharp lens compared to the 75-300 IS. I have the 75-300 IS and the extra zoom is very handy. If you are planning to blow up your photos to a large print, then the f4 L will be much sharper, but for normal 4x6 prints I feel the 75-300 IS is quite good especially once it's stopped down a little . The IS really helps a lot at the longer focal lengths. I do get at least 2 stops better with IS.
But another thing to consider is the 75-300 IS is quite slow to autofocus.
Difficult decision for this trip. My gut feeling is you would gain more on this trip by having the extra reach and the IS to have nice tight pictures of your subjects.......but for more general use, I think the 70-200 f4L would be a better investment because of the sharpness.....
Perhaps find a used 75-300 IS and sell it after your trip.......

Good luck with it all!

[xuxu1]

Aha... Botswana!

So it´s going to be a visit to the Okawanga Ressort?

Being on a vehicle i would think the IS lens could be better (camera shake) but with 300mm you´ll be ok with the elephants and maybe be lucky to get close to some wildlife. If possible, try to get a lens with more reach. AFAIK you can rent such a lens if you don´t want to buy one.

Since your trip will we next Easter, there is lots of time to save for a 100-400L :mrgreen:

Have fun in Botswana.

Regards
ED

[Big Al51]

Thanks for all the suggestions. It does seem as though I will be needing the IS.:)

I'd love the 100-400L and although there's plenty of time for saving until Easter all of that saving is going to have to be used to pay for the trip. Also weight is an issue, 12Kg limit for the aircraft!:(

Thanks again for all the suggestions.

[xuxu1]

Also weight is an issue, 12Kg limit for the aircraft!:(
I believe your talking about hand luggage!? Well it depends on what you intend to bring along on your trip. As a comparison...

My Nature Trekker AW II with the 10D w/grip and the three lenses the 681B monopod listed below as well as 3 spare batteries and the usual small stuff like CF-cards, charger... and so on has 11kg weight. Many times, though not all airline carriers, do not charge extra for overweight if your taking photo gear with you.

Maybe you can ask them and make an agreement?

Regards
ED

[Big Al51]

Not hand luggage I'm afraid.

We fly in to the various safari camps by light aircraft and the luggage limit is 12 Kg per person, soft bags only.:cry:

[Croasdail]

I have the 75-300 IS and used it for vacation last spring. It did great and was a very managible size. I am going to be selling it soon only because I have too many lenses now and it overlaps a lot. It is not as sharp as some of the L glass - but you can easily get 8x10s out of it. It has really nice color saturation and the IS does help with some low light shots that would not be able to be get hand held before. I used it once in spring to shoot an NCAA soccer playoffs game only because I had to send in my other big lens be calibrated with the camera body - and while I had to do more post shoot work in PS... they turned out good enough. I would not want to rely on it as a prime sports photograhy lens though. Good luck with it.

[ed2day]

I really think you'll be frustrated with the reach of a 200mm lens. I'd lean towards the 75-300 even though it's an inferior lens, if those were my only two choices.

[duncanc]

My two cents:
I had a 75-300 IS for almost one moth. I have been trying it in lots of different conditions of light, speed and aperture. The results were amazing because of IS allowing me to handholding shoot 2-3 stops slower. I can't compare it with the 70-200 but IMHO, for (wild) wildlife I would go for the 75-300. Hope this helps you. Enjoy your trip

[Outdoor23]

the 70-200 is a much better lense optically comapred with the 75-300 IS USM, but 200 might now be enough reach for wildlife. Going for the 70-200 L means you might want to buy a TC to add some range (but you also lose some stops for it). Really depends on which is more important to you, the quality or the range. Good Luck!

[bigchef920]

I just bought the EF 75-300 IS USM. Today was my first opportunity to use it. These were taken at Guana River State Park, Ponte Vedra, FL. Please keep in mind that I am very new to SLR photography & especially to telephoto zoom lenses. I am very pleased with my first attempt & I recommend this lens. You decide...

[Outdoor23]

good shots bigchef!