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

[EricPvpi]

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.

[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.

[neuroanatomist]

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...

[andnowimbroke]

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.

[Dave Throgmartin]

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

[EricPvpi]

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

[Sheiky]

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

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

[Kombi]

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

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 --
I also thought I needed a zoom to capture the landscapes.. because they were in the distance

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.

[EricPvpi]

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.

[EricPvpi]

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.