EF 70-300 IS USM or EF 70-200 f/4L USM or ...?

I am looking for advice comparing a few telephoto lenses. I am a beginner in the DSLR area.

I went with a T3i body so I could spend a little more on lenses. I currently have the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens as my general lens and I would like something for outdoors, wildlife, kid activities etc. I am looking in the 70-300 range. This would be mainly shooting without a tripod, so IS is probably a plus. Ideally something in the $500 to $600 range. I am willing to spend a little more for quality over a basic lens and I don’t want to find myself looking to upgrade after taking a few shots. I have been reading a lot of similar comparisons, but I couldn't tell if lack of tripod would change the recommendations, and several of the other comparisons are looking at the higher end zoom lenses.

I have been looking at:
• EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
• EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
• EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

The 55-250 is the cheaper route to go, but my guess is the build and picture quality will leave me wanting to upgrade. The 70-200 f/4L is a little above where I wanted to be in price and I worry about not having IS. But if it shoots better, it is close enough in price. The 70-300 sits in the middle. Really I wish there was something in this range with the quality and features of the 15-85 I have with the better ring USM focus.
I have also thought about looking at used 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. But I don’t know enough to evaluate a used lens and make sure there aren’t issues with it.

Any thoughts here, or should I just go with the 70-300? If I went 70-200mm f/4L USM, is it that much better and would I be ok without the IS?

Thanks,
Eric

Tough decision. The 70-200 is significantly sharper and has a faster f-number in the overlapping range, but the 70-300 has I.S. and an extra 100mm reach (which will give better pictures than cropping the 70-200). One of the first things to consider is what time values (shutter speeds) you'll need. Wildlife sometimes holds very still, but often you're at least 1/250 or 1/500 to start with. In the latter case, I.S. probably wont help much. For kids I don't usually ever go below 1/125, even if they're trying to hold still. But if they're running around and playing, I'm back up to 1/250 or 1/500 again. So for those two, I.S. may not be much help. But for other outdoor photos, such as landscapes or portraits of adults (who I can usually shoot at 1/60), the I.S. will come in very handy.

Then there's the extra 100mm reach. I would be thinking about how often I would use that, and how important those shots are. If wildlife was the most important consideration, you definitely want that 100mm. But if kids are the primary purpose, and you can cover most of the needed range with 70-200, then stick with the L.

Hope that helps.

You can always try the used section at KEH, B&H Photo, or Adorama. You might pay a little more as they know what they are looking at. BH recently had the 70-200 f4 go for $500 which isn't bad (about $70 off a refurb price). Refurbs are another route I'd look at too. Just keep an eye on the prices. Sometimes a new lens with a rebate will run about the same. As far as your choice of lens, I'll have to let someone else answer that, but if you're shooting energetic kids or birds in flight, IS isn't as big of a deal. Just helps a little when composing.

I was in the same boat as you when I first started. I would agree with Daniel's assessment of the situation, but would add a couple other things to the mix. I had the 70-300 and was thinking that the 300 was going to be the best choice of the bunch, but soon found that once you get out past 200mm with that lens, the sharpness begins to really take a hit. I found that for wildlife it was a little short, but then again...I only see a deer every now and then. Birds it was way too short. I sold that lens and purchased the 70-200 f/4 IS when I had enough money saved up. That was one of the best decisions I made. I think that the 1.6 crop factor in your t3i will give you more than enough reach if your chasing after your kids. It does work for wildlife but you will do some cropping. I used my 70-200 with a kenko 1.4x tc for the longest time and had great results. My selection would be with the L and if you had the chance, get the L with the IS. You could look for some used on KEH.com or check the inventory at the Canon refurbished. You can sometimes catch a special where you get 15% off there. I know Adorama and B&H have a used and refurbished department also. That would be my suggestion.

Of those the 70-200mm f/4L USM is what I'd pick. It's the sharpest of the three, widest aperture, and non-variable aperture.

The 70-300mm's variable aperture, and poor image quality put it right into the lens you'll regret category. The 55-250mm again has the variable aperture, and a weak long end. Bryan's review has plenty of comparison shots that show off it's weaknesses.

Mouse over comparison of 70-200mm vs. 70-300mm and 70-200mm vs. 55-250mm, all set at 200mm on a Canon 40D.

Eric,

I would definitely suggest reading the 55-250 review and start at the paragraph that begins with "comparing". It basically states everything you want to know.

I've never owned the 55-250 or the 70-300, but I have owned the 70-200 F4L and 70-200 F4L IS(currently). The image quality from these lenses is just top knotch and I would suggest either one of these two just for that. However budget is not to be forgotten.
The 70-200 F4L might not have IS, but it has fast USM focus and a constant F4 aperture that is very usable in terms of image quality. You don't have to stop down to get much better image quality, which you might have to with the other two lenses.
The F4 aperture is also very nice in lower light situations. I don't know about your wildlife scenery, but I occasionally find myself with low-light nature. Wildlife is usually most present when from sunset till sunrise. And simply said, you could use the faster aperture in those times.
However IS could compensate for that, but only for stable shots. So the animal you are taking photos just has to sit still.

My advice is to test these lenses. I have bought the 70-200 F4L IS second hand and it looked like new and when I used it it worked like new.
Also the 55-250 second hand(even in stores) is very cheap. So cheap that you might consider buying one just to see if you like it. And if you don't you could just sell it for the about the same price.

Either way, I'd say go and test some lenses. There's no doubt that the L-lenses have better image quality, but it comes with a price.

Good luck,
Jan

Thanks for the feedback so far. As far as usage, it would be more kid chasing on the playground and soccer fields (ranging 4 months to 8 years). General outside hiking, tourist stuff. So wildlife would be catching what I see for memories.

I have been reading all of the reviews here on the lenses in question which really started my thinking and putting this post up. I really didn't expect to be looking at L-lenses at this point. But seeing the sharpness difference between the lenses caught my eye and wanted to get some more input before picking a direction.

I am new, so I don't want to buy a lot of lenses I may not end up using. My current lens and the 70-200/300 will cover a great range and if it goes well, I can specialize from there. Its always the age old issue of balancing price with need. But if I can spend a few extra dollars and get those great pictures, it would be worth it.

Again, thanks for the advice.

Eric

With a lens you can use/keep for years. Camera bodies you could change regularly. Therefore investing in L glass will pay in the long run.

IMO the 55-250 IS and 70-300 IS are both fine lenses for casual use. If you're after the best image quality possible the 70-200 f/4 L is a better choice, but it comes at the expense of no image stabilization. If you go with the L lens you could find yourself in a position of having to bump ISO beyond where you want to go, or be forced to use a flash, to avoid image blur in less than ideal light.

I don't have the 70-300, but do have the 55-250. I've tagged all my pictures in Flickr with which lens is used, etc... My 55-250 pictures are at the link.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68255851@N05/tags/55250/

Dave

Did you mean "If you don't go with the 70-200L..."?

andnowimbroke - If the last question was for me...

I think my initial thought was the EF-S 70-300 based on pricing, having IS, and my beginner status. On B&H it is currently $549.

Close in price is the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM at $674 (no IS). Based on sharpness in the right conditions, the extra money would be worth it. So right now, after reading comments and reviews, my concern of going the L route would be the loss of IS and what that means for me.

I'm pretty sure that andnowimbroke's question was not for you, EricPvpi. It was for Dave Throgmartin, who said "If you go with the L lens you could find yourself in a position of having to bump ISO beyond where you want to go, or be forced to use a flash, to avoid image blur in less than ideal light." I took that to mean that the I.S. of the 70-300 can help all those issues as long as camera shake is limiting the time value (shutter speed). But andnowimbroke is asking because under many circumstances, the time value is not limited by camera shake, but by other things. In the latter case, I.S. is of no help, and the L lens has potentially one full stop wider f-number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EricPvpi

Based on sharpness in the right conditions, the extra money would be worth it. So right now, after reading comments and reviews, my concern of going the L route would be the loss of IS and what that means for me.

---

You mention shooting "outdoors, wildlife, kid activities etc." My rank ordered recommendation in your position would be EF 70-200mm f/4L > EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS > EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS.

Getting the bottom two out of the way first, I think for use on a crop body, there's not a lot of difference between the two lenses. IQ is generally similar, neither has stellar build, neither has full time manual focus, both have rotating front elements, etc. The EF-S lens is a lot cheaper, which means more money for other things (like saving up for the L lens that you will very likely replace it with eventually!).

I'd recommend the 70-200mm f/4L for several reasons. It's got better IQ - for me, at least, that's usually the most important characteristic. It's faster - f/4 all through the range vs. f/5.6 at the longer end (which is where you need it to be faster, usually), and that stop can make a big difference. Seems you'll mostly be using the lens outdoors (which I agree with - I found the 70-200mm range too long for convenient indoor use on my 7D), and outdoors usually has a fair bit of light, at least when kids are playing (not really talking youth sports here, because then even f/4 won't usually cut it). The lack of IS is an issue, yes - but a surmountable one. Mi reasoning is that out at >150mm, you'd want 1/320 s for handholding on APS-C, and that's at f/5.6 with the other two lenses. Now, 3 stops of IS will allow you to handhold down to 1/40 s - but that's way too slow for something like a moving kid (even a kid 'holding still' usually needs 1/60 s or better yet 1/100 s, at least, mine do!). The extra stop of f/4 vs. f/5.6 means you can shoot at 1/320 s where the f/5.6 lens would already be down at 1/160 s and needing IS. I've got the f/2.8 IS II version of the 70-200mm f/2.8, but looking over my shots, the ones in daytime were almost always in enough light for 1/320 s at f/4 with ISO 1600 (which is usable with a decent RAW converter - something like DxO or LR will beat out DPP, and you should definitely be shooting RAW if you'll be using higher ISOs - with DxO, 3200 is ok on my 7D, and that's the same sensor as your camera).

Hope that helps...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

I'm pretty sure that andnowimbroke's question was not for you, EricPvpi. It was for Dave Throgmartin, who said "If you go with the L lens you could find yourself in a position of having to bump ISO beyond where you want to go, or be forced to use a flash, to avoid image blur in less than ideal light." I took that to mean that the I.S. of the 70-300 can help all those issues as long as camera shake is limiting the time value (shutter speed). But andnowimbroke is asking because under many circumstances, the time value is not limited by camera shake, but by other things. In the latter case, I.S. is of no help, and the L lens has potentially one full stop wider f-number.

---

Daniel was correct on all these things :) Thanks for clearing up my words or lack thereof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

Daniel was correct on all these things :) Thanks for clearing up my words or lack thereof.

---

Sorry, my intent was to imply if you intend to shoot at lower shutter speeds at static objects the IS comes in handy. That's all. If you're shooting sports then you're more concerned with stopping action than you are having enough shutter speed to prevent camera blur.

Dave

Thanks for all the great comments. I'll keep reading reviews and decide where to go. It is interesting to see how many people have been through a few lenses and end up with the 70-200 IS USM L lens in either the f/4 or 2.8. I can see where this can become an expensive hobby :) I can see myself justifying the $1200 lens in my head when I started the search thinking $500-$600.

In the short term, I pulled out my 20 year old EF 80-200mm 1:4.5-5.6 film SLR lens. It isn't quite up to what the newer lenses can do (and it was on the low end 20 years ago), but it will at least buy me a little time to research what to buy. Until summer kicks in, I'll still be mainly indoors or close distance with my 15-85.

Thanks,
Eric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EricPvpi

It is interesting to see how many people have been through a few lenses and end up with the 70-200 IS USM L lens in either the f/4 or 2.8. I can see where this can become an expensive hobby :) I can see myself justifying the $1200 lens in my head when I started the search thinking $500-$600.

---

I think these are the first symptoms of L-disease. Good luck mate:p

Your idea sounds good though. Just see what you like and dislike about the 80-200 and go from there. Good luck!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

I think these are the first symptoms of L-disease. Good luck mate:p

---

I got that now.

I am also a beginner

--I bought the 55-250 as my first upgrade to my camera (t2i) Dec 2010, based on price and my kit lens ended at 55 --
:o I also thought I needed a zoom to capture the landscapes.. because they were in the distance:o

Anyway.. once I started researching and learning more about photography... I was happy with it until I started reading these forums.(Jan 2012)

The 55-250 met my needs for general image capture and online images. When printing some pictures to 5"x7" I was still pleased with results. However, once I bought my 24-105L lens the image quality is so much nicer, that I immediately started renting L series zoom lenses. Now that I'm making an effort to take better pictures I will definitely be replacing the 55-250.. still renting and testing for now.

If I was choosing today from the 3 you list I would go for the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM.

One plus for the 55-250 is it is very light when compared with any L series lens I've tried. So if your carrying it around or packing it in a day-pack you won't notice it's there.

I am definitely leaning towards the EF 70-200mm f/4L. I think I can wait a bit before I really need it, so I'll keep learning on my 15-85. Once I get a feeling on where I want to go with this as a hobby, I'll get 70-200mm f/4L USM or go for the IS version.

Well, I ended up with a little more than I planned in the beginning. After looking over everything, I decided to go with the 70-200mm f/4L USM with the IS. I thought that would give me the widest rage of uses.

Just to go a little further, I was pricing this and found that if you buy it with a 60D, you get some extra money off, plus the 60D had a rebate going. I originally went with the T3i since the price jump to the 60D was too great. Buying with the lens took $200 off the 60D. Being within 30 days of my purchase, the T3i is on its way back and the 60D and lens came yesterday. Looking forward to trying them both out.

I'll keep with this lens and the 15-85 for a while and start thinking about a faster lens for indoor. Maybe 28, 35, or 50 prime or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. I guess that will start some more research once I think about what length I want.

That's great news! You're going to be really happy with your new gear.

Haha only 7 days after: "I think I can wait a bit before I really need it, so I'll keep learning on my 15-85":p
Seriously, congratz! It's quite a nice set you've got there. Have fun with it and share some results if you want:D

My wife's advice was if you are going to buy it later, you might as well buy it now. I called that permission and who am I to argue. :)

You read everyone's progression through lenses, so I figured I would try and skip at least a step and get what will be a better long term purchase. And if I was going to make the move and switch from the T3i to 60D, doing it when I could still return it made sense and I could get the rebates on the two. So maybe it was just a sign.

Can't argue with that:D Buying twice mostly costs a lot more, so I get your point. I'm pretty sure you'll be happy with your choice.