Canon 300mm lens

martin1016 · 19-08-2008 4:11pm #1

I am in the US at the moment and upgraded to a EOS 450D kit a few months ago. Enjoying the camera and learning but want to get a bigger zoom lens.

I have been looking at this one Canon 70-300 mm EF f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens and wonder if it a good price or if its woth the extra money over this one - Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III EF Lens.

I think I prefer the IS option but welcome any comments, most of the stuff I shoot will be landscape, the kids and general stuff. Might add a 50mm next year when I learn how to use the camera better.

Thanks for the comments.

sasar · 19-08-2008 4:15pm

I wouldn't take any of these, better go for 70-200 f/4 or 2.8 if you can afford it.

Ricky91t · 19-08-2008 4:17pm

sasar wrote: »

I wouldn't take any of these, better go for 70-200 f/4 or 2.8 if you can afford it.

Agreed for an extra $110 you can get the 70-200 f/4 http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541164356.htm

challengemaster · 19-08-2008 4:19pm

Agreed again. 70-200 > *

martin1016 · 19-08-2008 4:36pm

ricky91t wrote: »

Agreed for an extra $110 you can get the 70-200 f/4 http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541164356.htm

Hadn't considered looking at the L range as I thought that they were usually twice the price but for an extra €75 the price is not really an issue. From a zoom perspective, is there much advantage to having the extra 100mm?

challengemaster · 19-08-2008 4:38pm

With the quality of the L glass, you can crop it the extra 100mm and probably still have better quality.

0utpost31 · 19-08-2008 4:46pm

While the 70-200 (2.8 version) is a fantabulous lens, it is overkill for taking photos of the kids and general stuff. I have used it before, and it's massive and white and sticks out a mile and just not good for walking around snapping general stuff.

I am somewhat biased towards the 70-300 is usm since I own it, but it is what you'd be looking for. Spending serious money on a 70-200 for taking photos of your kids is just overkill.

martin1016 · 19-08-2008 4:47pm

Thanks - how does the price seem? Sort of browsing through the site and you could go a little mad

0utpost31 · 19-08-2008 6:18pm

Just looked at the other posts there, if you really want the 70-200 f4 then why not if it's only 110dollars extra. But it seems like the guys have given you the idea, when instead you were initially aiming for the 70-300 is usm.

With the 70-200mm, for $110 extra, you will lose 100mm, gain about a foot in camera size (a pain if you want to be discrete), and you will also lose image stabilisation which is a lifesaver sometimes. I suppose image quality will be 110% on the 70-200, but what good is that really if you're only starting out.

/2cents

The price for the 70-300 is about right, but I got it for 50e cheaper on ebay.

Hearvee · 19-08-2008 6:53pm

Outpost31 above beat me to it.

I've got the 70-300 IS you're talking about and am perfectly happy with it.
The main reason I picked it over the 70-200 is size, it's a handy sized lens to carry around, and the IS is great when your shooting (relatively) stationary subjects!
I think I got mine for about €30 less on eBay as well. Definitely worth the extra money over the 75-300 you've linked.

I'm not denying the 70-200 is going to provide sharper and better quality pics, but it's not something you're going to be bringing in your hand luggage on weekends away, work trips, etc.

Balfey1972 · 19-08-2008 11:58pm

Hearvee wrote: »

Outpost31 above beat me to it.

I've got the 70-300 IS you're talking about and am perfectly happy with it.
The main reason I picked it over the 70-200 is size, it's a handy sized lens to carry around, and the IS is great when your shooting (relatively) stationary subjects!
I think I got mine for about €30 less on eBay as well. Definitely worth the extra money over the 75-300 you've linked.

I'm not denying the 70-200 is going to provide sharper and better quality pics, but it's not something you're going to be bringing in your hand luggage on weekends away, work trips, etc.

agree with Hearvee too. I have the 70-300 is. love it. portable and i am happy with the results. not a bad all rounder. If it is sports photos you are after go for the 70-200L. thats my next one in the bag.

martin1016 · 20-08-2008 1:43pm

The review of the 70-300 looks really good - see here and as I am far from an expert I am not sure if it would make much difference to me yet. I still haven't decided but if I was going L I would like f/2.8 and that is a big jump in price.

I was thinking last night that I might be better using the USD110 against a 50mm lens instead or buying a tripod.

Fajitas! · 20-08-2008 1:58pm

The 70-300 with IS is a great lens, nice and discrete, not as big and obvious as the 70-200. I'd go for it in your position.

sasar · 20-08-2008 3:01pm

Fajitas! wrote: »

The 70-300 with IS is a great lens, nice and discrete, not as big and obvious as the 70-200. I'd go for it in your position.

BUT, 2.8 is 2.8:rolleyes:

rgiller · 20-08-2008 3:59pm

Some people get into the habit of buying a camera and then having to have all the top of the line, very expensive lenses to go with it. It's fine if you're selling your photos, or getting them printed up to a huge size, but for the general everyday stuff that amateurs want to take pictures of, something like the 70-300 IS is perfect. Read any review out there: good IQ, great IS and an all round reliable performer. You don't need L glass to take great pictures and for someone in your situation I'd go for the 70-300.

0utpost31 · 20-08-2008 4:37pm

Here is a flickr discussion where people are posting their fave pics taken with the 70-300 is usm if you wanna check it out.

Fajitas! · 20-08-2008 5:34pm

sasar wrote: »

BUT, 2.8 is 2.8:rolleyes:

Shi-Really? :pac:

Having an f/2.8 isn't the be all and end all - Bearing in mind I own the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, have used the 70-200 f/2.8, 70-200 f/4 and the 70-300 IS... There's a pretty big price difference iirc between the 2.8 and the 70-300 IS (And the non IS)

The 70-300 IS is half the size and weight as the 2.8. It's a nice little lens, discreet too. It gets great reviews.

You don't need L glass to take great pictures

Fact.

martin1016 · 21-08-2008 3:14pm

0utpost31 wrote: »

Here is a flickr discussion where people are posting their fave pics taken with the 70-300 is usm if you wanna check it out.

Thanks for that link - very helpfull, need to decide today if I am going to buy it.

jackdaw · 21-08-2008 3:28pm

I have both the 70-300 IS USM f4-5.6 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS L

Im very happy with both, the 70-300 for a non L lens is great quality ..
some say it's a "hidden" L class lens ?? !

maybe ...

check out these ..

Taken with 70-300 (at 300mm f5.6) -- no post processing .. exactly fresh from the camera ...

kgiller · 21-08-2008 4:12pm

Great shots jackdaw, love the first shot there, great quality. Im actually a qualified zoologist and cant think of the name of that animal (im getting stupider by the day - and yes i know stupider isnt a real word

)

Id go with the 70-300mm is i was buying one as a beginner, rather than a huge and very expensive 70-200mm.

jackdaw · 21-08-2008 4:51pm

kgiller wrote: »

Great shots jackdaw, love the first shot there, great quality. Im actually a qualified zoologist and cant think of the name of that animal (im getting stupider by the day - and yes i know stupider isnt a real word )

Id go with the 70-300mm is i was buying one as a beginner, rather than a huge and very expensive 70-200mm.

It's a Praire dog ..

sorry thats spelt wrong ..

Canon 300mm lens

Comments