Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 18, 2005, 1:46 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 106
Default

Hi ,

I need some advise to decide whether to buy a canon 70-200/4 L or Canon 75-300 IS to go with my 28-135 IS lens.

I own a Digital Rebel XT & Canon 28-135 IS lens. So far I am satisfied with the performance.

BuT the reach of 28-135 is not quite enough for me.

If I buy a 70-200/4 L lens will I feel a good increase in reach or should I buy 75-300 IS lens.

Thanks in Advance
pasu_chennai is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 18, 2005, 3:43 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

Between thetwo, I would go with the 70-200F4. Much sharper IMHO. What kind of subjects you shoot?
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2005, 4:09 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 106
Default

Thanks for the reply. I love shooting flowers and birds. i would want my new lens for shooting sports action too.

My question is 200-135 = 65mm or (200*1.6-135*1.6) = 104mm is a noticable increase in zoom range or should I go for 75-300mm IS lens.

Since I already have 28-135mm IS lens.

Thanks..
pasu_chennai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2005, 7:05 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12
Default

Well, you already know the answer by looking at your current lens. Is there sufficient difference between 70 and 135 (65 diff)? You're going to see the same difference between 135 and 200.

For myself, that isn't enough of a difference but you may find that you will use the 70-200 f4 for everything in that range and just use your current lens for everything below that range.

All the Canon consumer lenses in the XX-300/100-300 range have been shown to be soft on the long end (I own the 100-300 and can tell you that is true). None of the "consumer" lenses are good wide open in this range. If you stop the lens down by 3 stops, you will get fairly sharp pictures but that means you will be shooting around f11 which isn't very practical for anything other than bright daylight. Bob Atkins on his website has a review of the different xx-300 Canon lenses.

The 70-200 f4 would be great for shooting sports action during the day (not inside a gym). If you are thinking full size field soccer or outfield shots in baseball/softball, 200 is too short unless you are willing to move up and down the sideline to get your shots. The 300 is adequate (with 8 mp, you have plenty of cropping space) but remember that you have to keep your shutter speed up to freeze action and IS won't help you with that. With the f4, you can shoot at f4 while the 70-300, you will need to keep it at f8 to f11 or suffer loss of sharpness.
ttmatsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2005, 9:18 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 175
Default

ttmatsu wrote:
Quote:
Well, you already know the answer by looking at your current lens. Is there sufficient difference between 70 and 135 (65 diff)? You're going to see the same difference between 135 and 200.

For myself, that isn't enough of a difference but you may find that you will use the 70-200 f4 for everything in that range and just use your current lens for everything below that range.

All the Canon consumer lenses in the XX-300/100-300 range have been shown to be soft on the long end (I own the 100-300 and can tell you that is true). None of the "consumer" lenses are good wide open in this range. If you stop the lens down by 3 stops, you will get fairly sharp pictures but that means you will be shooting around f11 which isn't very practical for anything other than bright daylight. Bob Atkins on his website has a review of the different xx-300 Canon lenses.

The 70-200 f4 would be great for shooting sports action during the day (not inside a gym). If you are thinking full size field soccer or outfield shots in baseball/softball, 200 is too short unless you are willing to move up and down the sideline to get your shots. The 300 is adequate (with 8 mp, you have plenty of cropping space) but remember that you have to keep your shutter speed up to freeze action and IS won't help you with that. With the f4, you can shoot at f4 while the 70-300, you will need to keep it at f8 to f11 or suffer loss of sharpness.
That's exactly right... I bought the 75-300IS a few weeks ago to shoot surfers, thinking I would need the extra 100mm that the 70-200L doesn't have... Well, I am not satisfied with the image quality of the 75-300IS. I am going to sell it and get the 70-200L.

First, I read a review of the 70-200L that stated that even 100% crops from this lens are sharp. That means I can "zoom" in further after I get the images home. Also, When on the beach the other day, I was looking through the viewfinder of the 75-300IS, and zooming from 200 to 300 didn't seem to make that much difference.

Here are some test shots I took with the 75-300IS. These have been sharpened in Photoshop. If this image quality is acceptable to you, then PM me an offer for this lens. My 70-200L is on it's way:

http://www.pbase.com/chris_miller/75-300_test
ChrisDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2005, 2:49 PM   #6
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

I would definitely stay away from the 75-300. The 70-200 f4 is a very good lense, but you need to ask yourself how much sports you will shoot - if it's more than just occasional then you really need to consider a 2.8 lense. The other thing that NHL will point out eventually :-)is that a 2.8 lense will give you better bokeh (especially for your flower shots) - which is another reason to go for a lense faster than 4.0.

What I am currently working with is a Sigma 70-200 2.8 with an occasional 1.4x teleconverter. This was about a $1000 usd setup - it gives me good 2.8 bokeh when I need it or good low-light performance for indoor sports etc - but with the 1.4x teleconverter I can still shoot at f4.0 which is great outdoors - it is a very good combination for starters. Where it falls short is with the birding - even with the teleconverter and 1.6x crop factor the 448mm equivelent is not the best for capturing birds. If that is going to be a big part of why you use the lense then I would look at the Sigma 100-300 lenses (or a 300mm prime) plus teleconverter. The lenses are fast enough that you can still use them for sports shooting and their optical quality is rated higher than any of the Canon competitors in that same range.

The sad news is - if you want to shoot sports and birds I think the 70-200 2.8 plus tc is the cheapest you can go and still get good results - slower lenses are just too limiting for this combination of activities IMHO.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2005, 3:51 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 106
Default

Thanks for all your input's.
I am also bit worried abt how well a Digital REBEL XT will hold this 70-200 / 4 L lens.I think the lens is 17.5 cm long and weighs 710 gm.

Considering this Is it possible to take hand held shots with this lens on REBEL XT.

I am also considering sigma 70-300 APO macro II. But I doubt if it will perform well , since it cost's very much less than canon 70-200/4 L (around 200$).

Thanks in advance.
pasu_chennai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2005, 4:35 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
VictorEM83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
Default

IMHO save your cash and buy a F2.8 version of the 70-200 lens because if you need to add a teleconverter later to add some reach like I need to do becuase of to having to improvise shooting at a minor league baseball field vs a high school baseball field you can still autofocus with a 1.4x or 2x extender and still shoot at F4(1.4x) or F5.6(2x).
VictorEM83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2005, 7:36 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12
Default

Having a 70-200 f4 on a XT shouldn't be a problem. I've seen people with REALLY big L lenses on their rebels. There was a picture of a guy with a 600mm L lens holding just the camera.

You probably need to learn a little about proper handling/holding techniques for longer zooms. You hold the lens, not the camera. As long as your shutter speed is 1/400, you shouldn't have any problem handholding a 200mm. If you are steady, you can go below the 1/focal length rule for handholding. The Canon 100-300 is 540 grams - not much difference. The 70-200 f2.8 is almost twice what the f4 lens weight.
ttmatsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2005, 12:31 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 106
Default

Thanks for the reply..
I have already ordered one (70-200/ f4 L) .. And it's on the way..

pasu_chennai is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:59 PM.