Lens Quandry

I'm tired of poor results from my antiquated 70-300 lens I've had for years. I'm going to throw it on Ebay for giggles and upgrade to something much, much better.

My problem is deciding which lens to go with. I've read fabulous things on this and other forums about the 70-200L ( both 4 and 2.8 ). However, I have a 28-135 IS and just feel the two lenses would have too much overlap to justify the price. I love the 28-135, and it's my "go-to" lens more often than not. It small size and weight would still allow it to get more daily use than a 70-200L.

I'm going to be using the new lens for things like professional baseball games, my son's t-ball and soccer, and wildlife photography. The 100-400L is probably the top of my list, but the size...wow. It's a big lens. Probably too big. The last thing I need is to be at my son's soccer game and be mistaken for someone who knows what they're doing. It would be a bit hard to explain to parents that I'm really not a good photographer when I'm shooting with equipment like that.

Anyway, I'm open to any suggestions as to a replacement for my 70-300. What would you go with if it were your purchase to make?

I've been taking pictures of my kids' soccer games, wrestling matches, basketball games, swimming meets for a few years now. I've gone from nikon to canon. I usually use the 70-200 F2.8 IS with great success. No reason at all to be embarassed with regard to the other parents. L glass I find to be the equivalent of a press pass. I've stood behind second base during softball games, etc. The umpire was sure I was shooting for the paper and asked me jokingly not to shoot him as he'd been in the paper enough. I've even submitted pictures to the local newspaper and had them published which was a great thrill for me.

This past Sunday I was in B&H deciding on a lens. I wanted the 100-400 as sometimes I long (no pun intended) for more length, especially during sports and zoo pictures. And I have the 1.4 teleconverter.

After handling the 100-400 (which I've checked out before and I know people on this forum have posted excellent results with) I decided at this time it wasn't for me. I did not like the push-pull zoom. It's not as large as the 70-200 F2.8 either, not as big as you think. I got the 24-70 f2.8 Canon and I'm loving it.

Well, I ended up going with the 70-200 f/4, and it has been on my camera most of the winter. It is not that heavy, it was a small adjustment, but now that it has been on there as my primary lens...I am more then used to it. If you are going to spend the money, I would say that the L's are not a bad way to go for a great lens. I did not feel I needed the 2.8, so I saved and went with the 4 with no regrets...but I do not do alot of indoor shooting. Good luck with your decision...

for wildlife the 100-400 is a very versatile lens and as someone said, its not as big or heavy as the 70-200 2.8. Not a lot smaller>I find the push pull zoom very feasy to use, gets a lot of reach with good quallity in a zoom. The other alternative for wildlife is the 400 prime. Not as versitile but a good quick focusing lens. I personally like the zoom as I can quickly follow the critters, getting closer or just showed up close. I have the 200 2.8 prime and like it a lot but it is short for most my wildlife stuff, however I did have it on doing some geese, and wouldn't you know it, they came in close and all I could get in the frame was half a goose. Trying to change lens or backing up spooks them, then there is nothing. Thats why I like the zoom.