Economical zoom lenses 70+mm

Most of the work I do involves landscape, hiking, street (low light), and macro photography. In addition to the 100mm macro, I'm pretty well covered between the 10 to 85 mm range on my crop camera.

Although I own the 75-300 canon kit lens. Its image quality and performance are not par with my other lenses and the results are mediocre at best. I looked at the 70-300 sigma or canon, 70-200 f4/f2.8 Canons and Sigma.

My question is that If i want to add a good lens to my arsenal that covers the 70+ range that would help in street/walking, landscape, and hiking(Wildlife-ish) photography as well as in landscapes , what would you recommend?

The goal is to spend around $500-$600 on something with great image quality. If alternatively, I have to save up for the 70-200 2.8 IS L that's ok as well.

Your thoughts?

Actually, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens is right in that price range, and it's an excellent lens. In fact, it's one of Canon's best values as far as image quality, build quality, and cost are concerned.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Actually, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens is right in that price range, and it's an excellent lens. In fact, it's one of Canon's best values as far as image quality, build quality, and cost are concerned.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

---

I can attest to this as it was one of the first lenses I ever bought. I recently upgraded to the IS version of this lens, but the non-IS is no joke. It was a great lens and if I hadn't gotten a killer deal on the image-stabilized version, I'd still be shooting with it now.

Very solid, lot of fun to use. And its pretty :)

Dave.

If you have the money for the f/4 IS version, I think the 70-300 L should also be a serious contender, depsite the f/5.6 on the long end, since it only reaches that aperture well past the 70-200mms range. It's only significantly slower (2/3s of a stop) on the last 45mm of the 70-200's shared focal length range, and if you're shooting towards the 200mm end of the range often enough that you're worried it could affect you, you're probably also going to find yourself feeling limited by the 200mm barrier just as often. You'll need to make a choice on speed vs. length.

But, yeah, for your budget, the 70-200 f/4 non-IS fits.

Thanks all for the advice. I don't mind waiting a few months and saving up for a better lens. I think the biggest concern is Image quality and Handheld-ability. It looks like the 70-300 L is a strong contender. I might have to wait until the summer to be able to get it, but if it's the right lens, then probably it's the right thing to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

Actually, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens is right in that price range, and it's an excellent lens. In fact, it's one of Canon's best values as far as image quality, build quality, and cost are concerned.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

---

+1, I just picked up the 70-200 f/4 L USM (non-stabilized) and it's an incredible for the dollar value lens. I haven't done a formal test and pixel peeped to prove this, but I'm getting results as good, or very close to as good, from the 70-200 f/4 as I have from the 135L prime lens.

If you can live without IS I'd give this lens the highest recommendation.

Dave

I'll put in a vote for the 70-300 IS USM non-L, even though I hated mine. If you treat it as a 70-200 IS USM and compare it to the 70-200 f/4 L non-IS, then it's just that tiny bit softer, has vari-aperture, but has IS which can help you out in a pinch, and is cheaper. It's also smaller and lighter, and doesn't "stand out" like a White lens does (depends on where you're going to use it, of course).
Just don't ever ever shoot it at 300mm. I've heard it's a lot better at 300mm than others (like the 75-300), but it was still nowhere near the standard I wanted (maybe I got a dud, or I have higher standards than others?). And the rotating front element can be annoying, but if you use a CPL, just hold the edge to keep it facing the correct way as you focus, tricky but I got used to it.

But in the end I got sick of soft 300mm shots (I only ever really used it at 300mm anyway), I sold it to my sister and bought myself the 70-300L, and couldn't be happier. Yes it's more than twice the price of the 70-200 f/4L non-IS, and a bit more than the 70-200 f/4 IS, but you get the extra reach and it's a nice compact weather-sealed tank (I didn't mind losing the aperture in exchange for a very-usable 300mm). I can walk around all day with it on, I've just been shooting some racing at the Tour Down Under with it, works like a charm (I even got asked by security "what agency are you with?" when i tried to get around a barrier to get shots. I should have made up a newspaper I worked for and gotten past him...)

Croubie, I have to disagree with recommending the non-L. Granted, I only had it for a few days, but I would always prefer the 70-200 f/4L non-IS if on a tight budget, or even the EF-S 55-250mm if on a very tight budget. If Dassouki is willing to save a little longer (and I think that is the case), the 70-200 f/4L IS is even better because the IS will help in a lot of situations. Or even the 70-300L for more reach - I'm a happy owner of that lens too.


Arnt

Yeah, I've just checked the prices. 70-300 non-L at B+H is $650, 70-200 f/4L non-IS is $630 including instant rebate.

When I bought miine, however, the 70-300 non-L was closer to €400 and the 70-200 f/4L was at €550 or so. With that kind of deal I opted for the IS over the constant f/4 and L-quality.
But if you're looking at practically the same prices like you are today, then yeah, i'd get the 70-200 f/4 L as well (or save for the 70-300L, which i did)

I remember that price for the non-L too. I was interested and rented it, but did not find it a significant improvement over the EF-S 55-250 (just updated my previous post), and waited a little longer until I got the 70-300L


Arnt

A good IS is worth the extra money in many situations IMO.
Here is an example @252mm 1/20s (fortunately the bird moved either very quickly or not at all):
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8077/8...b5a96ee2_b.jpg
101 _MG_7568 by ahab1372, on Flickr


Arnt

I'd go with the 70-200mm f/4 non IS L if your budget is around $600. But if you can save up a little bit more, go for the 70-200mm f/4 IS L. IMO, it has a slightly better IQ than the non-IS version, and it'd be perfect for hiking, as it's much lighter than the f/2.8 IS L that you mentioned. I love my 70-200mm f/4 IS L. The IS is great when I need it, I've taken many shots with the IS version under low light situations (under 1/30s!). This wouldn't have been possible with the non-IS version, since it's a pretty long focal length (expecially on crop sensor). So I say wait a little long and go for the IS version. It'll be perfect for landscape, hiking because it's light, and good reach for wildlife. Good luck with your decision!

Regardless of the price of the 70-300 non-L , they've already got a poor performing, long reaching, 75-300mm, and want a step up in quality. They don't need a second sub-par lens in the same focal length range. What they need a good solid lens (and a sucker to buy their old lens! ;) )

With their existing lens they can answer the question of if they want/need over 200mm, and whether they use over 200mm more often than wishing the lens was a bit faster. Given the original budget, we can assume the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II is out... though the f/2.8 non-IS might fall in the accepted higher price range too, just to confuse matters further.

I really like the 70-200 f/4L IS lens. I do mostly landscapes which involves hiking, so the f/4 makes the backpack a lot lighter, especially on the way back. It's generally an outdoor lens but it sounds like that would fit your needs. It's a versatile lens, so it's one to keep in your possession for a long time. Good luck with your choice and please post some of your results! Happy shooting, Erno.

All shot using a Canon 7D and the 70-200 f/4L IS lens (top 3 with tripod, last 3 without):
[img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7122/7...c03829cd_c.jpg
Burnt Orange Sunset by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

[img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8487/8...38948a23_c.jpgBig Sur(f), California by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

[img]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5460/7...cf58a43d_c.jpg
Ring of Fire by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

[img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7064/6...978b35d8_z.jpg
With a Flick(r) of the Wrist by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

[img]http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6128/6...331e2108_z.jpg
'The Stuccoed Ladies' in Capitola, CA by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

[img]http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6015/5...a704313e_z.jpg
Red boats. Capitola Wharf by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

I have rented the 70-200 F4 and own the 70-300 IS USM. I also own the 70-200 2.8 II. I have never tried the 70-300L. I think that the 70-300 IS USM is a great deal if you want the extra reach. It has nice color and good sharpness for $500. If you want the great color, sharpness, and detail, then I think the 70-200 F4 is the way to go for around $700. All the best.