telephoto, what would you suggest?

only got my 350d with kit lens a few days! Had a nikon Fe2 previously with some rubbish lenses... so, was wondering if anyone could give me some advice on getting a good telephoto so i can start saving Not gonna make the mistake of buying lots of shoddy lenses rather than one good one!

anyway, was interested in the canon 70-200 f4 L USM, 200 F2.8 L USM, 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM... are there any else out there that are of a similar price/ performace?

basically... im not sure which would be a good route to go, i realise everyone goes on about the L series because of build quality and better colours etc but would i get more use out of the 70-300 over the 70-200 because it has IS? im not so bothered about the increased focal length, 200mm is great for me. and i can always boost the colours in PS...

on the other hand... what about getting a prime lens? what are the advantages? i get the feeling that most people use their zoom lenses at the far end so perhaps i wouldnt miss having a zoom. I can imagine having a couple of extra stops at 200mm a big advantage over the 70-200mm f4, and i guess it would make the IS on the 70-300 redundant.

one last question..! sorry hehe. just wondering if the focusing of the L series lenses is any faster to non L lenses, or do they use the same USM system.

thanks for any help!

stu

Seems like every single time I get out my 70-200L IS, it goes RIGHT to 200. I just don't use anything in between. I would suggest a prime. Maybe start saving for a 300 f/4L IS? Have to get about a grand for that. That 200 2.8L isn't bad either. Primes are just sharper than zooms, in the long run, and it's not just a little bit..it's noticeable.

hehe not sure i can stretch my budget that far... will be years before i get a second lens! i'm just a poor lowly student! giving some thought to trading in my nikon stuff... I'm pretty sure i got ripped off on it though! think its worth a lot less than what i paid for it a couple of years ago... and it looks nice... so maybe not!

thanks for reply

stu

I purchased a 70-200 F4/L a few months ago and it has been the best thing I have bought in a long time. The build quality is amazing (coming from the kit lens anyway) and everytime I upload my photo's and see them on the monitor I am blown away. THAT is what I wanted and expected from an L lens and so far I have not been dissapointed.

Depends what you want to shoot and how much you have to spend...

Take that back!
LOL.

haha no! its metal and chunky... how cameras should be! lol. talking about things looking nice....

... the black 200mm f2.8 L or the white (yay) 70-200 f4 L! am i gonna get a kicking for being so shallow:P?

I've just moved from a 75-300 zoom to 300 Prime and haven't missed the zoom one little bit. Whenever I shoot with a long lens, 90% of the time I use max zoom. I'd go for a Prime, either 200 or 300mm as required. I find zooms more useful on wider lenses for general walkabout shots.

Stupot,. if indeed it may be years before your next lens,. in that case I'd stick with the 70-200mm f/4 plan.

70-200L sounds good to me.

The 70-200mm zooms (f2.8 or f4) are practically no-brainer choices. I'd suggest Sigma 100-300mm f4 too (and a monopod for support). If primes suit your taste, either 200mm or 300mm are very nice. The 300mm f4 gives a higher magnification and so does a good job in flower or insect closeups (but don't expect *true* macro!).

Here's my take on the 70-200 from an earlier post: if you search on "70-200" you will learn more than you ever wanted to know about these lenses.

I've read many threads asking about the Canon 70-200 f4L version. I opted for the 2.8 (non IS version) after considering the following:

1. Price: F 2.8 is about $550 more BUT the 2.8 comes with hood, tripod mount and lens case. I would have purchased all of these anyway. Total cost if purchased for the F 4 is around $200 so the real difference is down to $350 for me. If these items aren't important, the decision is more difficult.
   
2. Compatibility issues: I'm planning to add at least two other L lenses that use the 77mm filter size--a good polarizing filter is $100 or more. I also plan to buy the 1.4 extender so the F 2.8 seems a better choice with that in mind.
   
3. Weight: The 2.8 is about one pound heavier. I haven't lugged it around for a day so I may regret it, but one pound doesn't seem that significant.
   
4. IS vs Non IS: I'm mostly a monopod/tripod user and will be shooting in good light for the most part. IS is very costly (adds about $600). If I was making my living with it I'd buy the IS version, but it seems a waste of $$$ for me. That will pay for the extender and a nice gift for my very understanding significant other.

I'm going to vote for the 70-300 IS.

I use my 75-300mm IS alot, and alot of the time at the long end, IS helps me a bunch. I purchased my big L just for sports and autoraces. Else if the action is slower I'll take the easy to carry, easy to use mini-IS tele everytime.

The only downside is the slow AF, but for general use I don't find it an issue.

-Chad

I used to use my 75-300 IS a lot too, but it won't see much action now I have the 300 F4 L IS. I found the 75-300 was too soft at 300mm where I nearly always used it. I've only had one chance to try out the 300 F4 L and it's a LOT better. I'm not knocking the 75-300 though, it's still handy if you need the zoom range, light weight and IS