Economical zoom lenses 70+mm

[ahab1372]

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):

101 _MG_7568 by ahab1372, on Flickr


Arnt

[francongphotography]

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!

[DavidEccleston]

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.

[erno james]

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]
Burnt Orange Sunset by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

[img]Big Sur(f), California by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

[img]
Ring of Fire by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

[img]
With a Flick(r) of the Wrist by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

[img]
'The Stuccoed Ladies' in Capitola, CA by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

[img]
Red boats. Capitola Wharf by ernogy, on Flickr[/img]

[john.malloy]

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.