which zoom lens for canon

[kalster]

I know the L has the far better build quality, but I am not yet very good at holding a heavy lens steady hence I am thinking the 70-300 IS would be a good choice, mostly going to be used for sports (college football, baseball etc), and occasional trips to zoo etc

 

[GTaudiophile]

As stated before...IS only counteracts the movement of your hand. Meaning, in a low-light situation you have to have high shutter speeds to "freeze" the subject in any way if that subject is in motion. If you are shooting a stationary object in low light, that is when IS becomes useful.

The big question is, what do you want the lens for? The 70-200 F4L is one Canon's best and is certainly their best value "L" lens along with the 17-40 F4L. But in order to get high shutter speeds at F4, you need really good light. Even outdoors with overcast skies will start putting your ISO 100 shutter speeds lower than 1/200 second, and if you are shooting at 200mm, you want to be faster than 1/200 second. So it's a great lens for the outdoors on sunny days, otherwise you will be shooting a lot north of ISO 400 and plan on leaving it on ISO 1600 if you take it indoors.

The 70-200 is very sharp and produces very good colors and contrast. It has that red ring. It zooms and focuses internally and is weather-sealed. It also has super-fast ring USM with full-time manual focusing. The 70-200 is also slightly cheaper than the 70-300. But it's also white and therefore attracts a lot of attention.

The 70-300 has an extra 100mm of reach. It is black and is more discreet. It of course offers IS. But it costs slightly more, it's not an "L", it telescopes, and it only has micro USM. The front lens element therefore rotates during focusing and makes it difficult to use circular polarizers. The 70-300 also lack F4 throughout the range. At 300mm, the best you will be able to do is F5.6. In terms of optical quality, I would say the 70-300 offers 90-95% of what the 70-200 can do, all things being equal.

So it comes down to what you need the lens for. If you need something for sports or low-light photography, neither is really ideal. If that is what you need, then take a look at the EF 135 F2.0L and EF 200 F2.8L prime lenses. If you just want a good telephoto for sunny, outdoor work, then lean towards the 70-200, especially if you carry a tripod or monopod. If you need a versatile lens that is decent for both indoor and outdoor work and you know you won't be carrying a tripod or monopod, then the 70-300 is probably the better bet.

At the end of the day, the "EF 70-200 F4L versus EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS" debate is one of the most fiercely contested debates in photography circles. Two lenses, similar range, similar price, but does one choose L or IS? People do rip their hair out!

What did I do? I bit the bullet and spend $1000 on the 70-200 F4L IS and couldn't be happier. Actually, a 70-400 F4L with the same price, size, and weight would be more ideal but oh well.

 

[kalster]

Thanks for the reply. I am going to be using it for some sports photography, zoo and and other outdoor with good available light. I cant forsee using it in low light conditions. I will be getting a 85 1.8 later on for telephoto in low light situations (since i am on a crop xti, it will be long enough). I am thinking of going with the 70-200 f4, even though i have read that both 70-300 and 70-200 have comparable quality, the 70-200 pics just seem to stand out

 

[shocksyde]

If you're going to be using it for outdoor sports, I'd suggest getting the 70-200f4L.

A few weeks ago I took mine out to the water and took pictures of people tubing behind a boat at ~30mph. I was able to use ISO100 and get fast enough shutter speeds to freeze the splashing water droplets. As long as you have good light, you'll be ok. And don't forget, ISO100 isn't the only usable ISO.

 

[corkyg]

I got the 70-200 L IS f/2.8, and it is outstanding for medium range telephoto work, But it is a moose to carry around with a 77 mm objective glass.

For portability, I went with the 70-300 DO IS, and it has become my 1st choice.

For outdoor work in daylight, the 70-200 f/4 L is a good choice as described by shocksyde.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Even outdoors with overcast skies will start putting your ISO 100 shutter speeds lower than 1/200 second

if you want to overexpose by a third of a stop maybe. and canon noise performance is good enough it isn't a problem going to ISO 200, 1/500, f/4 on those heavy overcast days.

 

[Jawo]

I wanted a general use telephoto so I got the 70-300 IS USM. Other than microUSM, and the lack of full time manual, I couldn't be happier with it. I've gotten awesome pictures at airshows, buildings, landscapes, etc. It almost works as a macro lens (if you don't mind standing 5' back).

 

[kalster]

yeh, I was leaning towards the 70-200 but am confused still, the more range would definitely be helpful.

Jawo: Does your 70-300 have any problem with portrait mode at all, also what is the lowest shutter speedyou have used where IS helped produce sharp images

 

[essasin]

Originally posted by: kalster
yeh, I was leaning towards the 70-200 but am confused still, the more range would definitely be helpful.

Jawo: Does your 70-300 have any problem with portrait mode at all, also what is the lowest shutter speedyou have used where IS helped produce sharp images

If you desire more range I would suggest getting a Canon Extender EF 1.4x II which makes it a 98-280mm f/5.6 and still keeps a very good image quality. I have been shooting with the 70-200 F4L and it shines in portraits. Day sports with the extender is great and I took some nice shots. But in the night/overcast and indoors it may be a bit slow for the aggressive or experienced shooter and this is where the pros say 70-200 f/2.8L or the 70-200 f/2.8L IS would be better. However for an amateur as myself it works just fine especially considering this glass is half the cost of the IS version and a nice flash would make shooting in those darker situations easier. Hope that helps.

 

[montanafan]

Kalster, I shoot a lot of sports and for football and baseball I use a Canon 75-300mm f/4 and a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. IS shouldn't really even be a consideration for sports because it's all about shutter speed. If you're shooting college sports then I know that most of the games willl be during the day, but you still might need to be concerned about low-light conditions. During football season, even if the games are in the afternoon, the weather can get pretty gray. I see from your profile that you're in CA, so that might not be that much of a problem for you. This photo was taken at a game in November at 2:45 in the afternoon, but the weather turned cloudy and then to rain. I was using the Sigma and you can see from the EXIF that I had the ISO at 800 and the aperture at f/2.8 to get the shutter speed up to 640.

http://i34.photobucket.com/alb...ntanafan/IMG_4309a.jpg

During baseball season the games can start in the afternoon, but go into the evening which can be a problem early in the season when it gets dark earlier, not to mention doubleheaders. So you might want to consider something like the Sigma. You know best what sort of conditions you'll be shooting under.

For baseball, I prefer the 75-300 whenever possible. I'm on the field when I shoot and if I'm standing next to first base and there's a play at third, the 300 is just right. You could use a TC with the 200, but I find that it slows the AF down. Same thing with football on a nice day. I might be standing 5 or 10 yards in front of the line of scrimmage and a long pass or run goes for a touchdown, then that extra focal length gets the catch or celebration in the endzone for me.

The 85mm f/1.8 will be excellent for basketball or volleyball, but not very useful for football or baseball unless you only want plays coming right at you.

Good luck, stay safe, and have fun shooting.

 

[ElFenix]

iirc, the 70-300 has a rotating front element, so polarizers are a pain in the rear. after reviewing, it seems like all 70-300s do that, except the new nikon and the DO canon.