Which tele lens would u recommend? 70-300 IS USM, 70-300 IS DO USM, 70-200 f4 IS USM

[maestrokk]

Hi fellow experts, can help me on this dilemma that i am having?

I am interested in looking for a tele lens to "up" my collection. My current Tamron 55-200 just do not have the clarity that i like. So intending to invest in one good lens.

I have heard a lot of comments on 70-200 f4 IS n non-IS USM vs 70-200 f2.8 IS n non-IS USM version. But i never see people comparing these will the 70-300 IS USM or the 70-300 IS DO USM lens. So would like to seek your opinion on this.

The additional zoom n cheaper price is attracting me, but the DO's size n weight is good to have too. The price of the DO and the 70-200 f4 non-IS is very close, yet i feel there is a necessary for a IS model since i shoot with my "Shaky" hands normally. That brings me to the 70-200 f4 IS USM lens. Which i am wondering if it is justifying the price over quality.

Currently not considering the 70-200 f2.8 model as i feels have yet to feel the need of a faster lens at this range. Furthermore the price is so high...

Thanks all.

 

[J-Chan]

just based on pure resolving power, the 70-200 f/4 IS is tops here without doubt..

 

[PrimePhotog]

70-200 f4L IS definitely. It's the sharpest zoom lens I have tried.( Have not tried any R mount zooms)

 

[nuthead]

Think you've to ask yourself what and where are you going to shot. The DO is definately not ideal for low light and indoor without a good lighting. But it would be a great lens for travel and outdoor shoot with adequate lighting. I keep on of this lens for travelling and most outdoor shoot as it is a compromise between weight, reach and it petite design.

I personally don't own a 70-200, but I've friend whom own it ranging from the F/2.8 ~ F/4 both with and without IS. The picture quality obviously deserve it place in the L family.

So the bottomline is you've to decide what you want and the compromise between each choice.

I've also almost brought a Canon 28-300 to cover the entire range which I need most of the time, but at the end of the day, am I going to carry a 2KG monster running around and eventually looks a camel at the end of the day.

Evaluate your choice wisely!

The

 

[maestrokk]

I think like many would have say, the 70-200 family is without doubt the one with the nest IQ within these selection.

But my question would be, if they are well worth the $$$...

70-300 IS USM looks cheap and some have quoted them to be relatively good.
Looking at the price, it is very attractive too!
I think DO is pretty much out, since i have read review that it is not as good as the 70-300, but the size.... (I think i can managed the 70-300 ba)

Thanks all for your comments.

 

[yc2005]

The additional zoom n cheaper price is attracting me, but the DO's size n weight is good to have too. The price of the DO and the 70-200 f4 non-IS is very close, yet i feel there is a necessary for a IS model since i shoot with my "Shaky" hands normally. That brings me to the 70-200 f4 IS USM lens. Which i am wondering if it is justifying the price over quality.

The DO price is higher than f4 IS, see this
http://www.canon.com.sg/section/digitalcameras/eflenselineup/lenses_specs.jsp#wide

IMHO, f4 IS would be better value for money. U get constant f4 across the range and the IQ is very good. If you dont need the extra range and dont need the compact-ness of the DO, get the f4 IS.

 

[maestrokk]

Thanks YC,

I didnt know there was such a price guide.
But i have asked for quote from MS, and the price is much lower then the RRP.
But still, its a good gauge.

 

[KY1977]

Save up more for 70-200 f2.8 IS. I find the f4 a bit limiting.

 

[lesliekoh]

is this lens, EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III good for a basic tele lens?

 

[shaoken]

I'm not a C or N brand user BUT I heard the 70-200mm F2.8L IS is the fastest and sharpest around.
Not sure what the other users think? :dunno:

 

[maestrokk]

Well... the 70-200 f2.8 is definately the best lens for this range.
But it is also the most ex lens. If you have the $$$, then i would say grab it!

Else, if you are like me, need to consider a lot to use your hard earned $$$ on a lens, then this thread is important loh...

So far not many people have commented about the quality of the 70-300...
Sigh...

 

[SJneo]

Hi TS,

face the same dilemma as you for a good few months. Eventually i settle for the 70-300 and yes, I think IS is essential at such range. So can skip all the non-IS i feel.

Between the DO and the non-DO 70-300, the DO version is easily twice the price and many reviews actually rate its IQ poorer then the no-DO. Unless you are really interested to get a small and compact zoom (in which case you can forget about the 70-200 too since its even bigger then the 70-300 non-DO) then I suggest give this lens a miss.

70-200 f2.8 IS as rated by most, sharpest and best zoom lens. But the price is easily 3 times that of 70-300. In BnS 70-200 2.8 IS is about 2200++ while 70-300 is about 700. Not to mention its size and heavy weight too.

Hence left to chose between 70-200 f4 and 70-300. Pros and cons for choosing the 70-300 over 70-200.

Pros:
-Half the price of 70-200 f4 which is going at about 1.5k in BnS
-Decent build (never use L before but definitely a big jump from my 18-55 kit)
-Smaller and lighter, makes it easier for traveling and changing lens. I already got my hands full changing this lens on and off, can't imagine the hassle of doing it with the bigger 70-200 lens
-Less conspicuous compared to 70-200, which is useful for street and candid photography

Cons:
- Lens extends quite a bit when fully zoom, might post a problem in tight shooting environement
- A bit soft at 300 end but if u work between 70 to 200 (assuming u get the 70-200) I think many reviews rate their IQ as comparable within this range
- not fix f stop. max f5.6 at 300 end but again if you are working within 70-200, the 70-300 has a max f5 at the 200. So for the entire 70-200 range you will lose only max 1 f-stop. Something which i can overlook for the above mention advantages.

70-300 maximum aperture at different focal lengths
70mm 100mm 135mm 200mm 300mm
f4.0 f4.5 f5.0 f5.0 f5.6

well that's about it. ultimately it depends on how much you are willing to spend on photography. Personally as a leisure shooter i find the 70-300 is decent enough. Go for the L only if you are sure that the extra few hundred $ is worth it, and not blindly follow the L frenzy haha

 

[maestrokk]

Thank SJneo,

I guess your comparision is relavant to what i wanted. Especially he last statement.
I was pretty much in the frenzy of following the L frenzy a week ago before the canon photomarathon. (Haha)
I was having the mentailty that a good lens will be able to compensate my poor skills and eventually the photos will be "average".
Eventually i was proven wrong.

So as a leisure photographer like me n you, i guess its more practical to work on a lens that is decent and not to go for the over kill.

Guess i will stick to my Tammy 55-200 until i find a worthy lens at a reasonable price.

Cheers