70-200 f4 ?

[btaylor]

Good advice here as always. I'll be short and sweet and say that the 70-200mm f/4L IS is one of the finest lens' I've owned. I now use the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I only upgraded because I needed the extra couple of stops of light when shooting weddings. I have used the non-IS version in a limited capacity but I wasn't nearly as impressed with is as the IS version. If it were me, I'd save up/ shell out a few more bucks for the IS version. It's an excellent lens.

I don't have the T3i but I did have the 40D and here's a couple of old shots with the IS version. This first one was pretty heavily cropped. The third was with extension tubes so I'm not sure how relevant it is but I don't have any others on my flickr page with that lens.

Hope this helps a little, although it doesn't entirely address your OP.

Ben


Bush Canary (found out what it actually is) by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr\


First Aiders by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr


Rawr!!! by Ben__Taylor, on Flickr

[peety3]

I now use the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I only upgraded because I needed the extra couple of stops of light when shooting weddings.

How'd you get a couple stops out of this one-stop upgrade?

[btaylor]

Errr....Magic? Excuse my brain function (or lack thereof), I'm on holidays.

[thekingb]

Good advice here as always. I'll be short and sweet and say that the 70-200mm f/4L IS is one of the finest lens' I've owned. I now use the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, I only upgraded because I needed the extra couple of stops of light when shooting weddings. I have used the non-IS version in a limited capacity but I wasn't nearly as impressed with is as the IS version. If it were me, I'd save up/ shell out a few more bucks for the IS version. It's an excellent lens.

+1. I loved my 70-200 f/4 L IS and sold it only to get the extra reach of the 70-300L. Here's a shot with my old Canon XS and the 70-200 f/4 IS. It was a MAJOR upgrade from the EF-S 55-250 that it replaced.

I'd save up for the IS version.

[DavidEccleston]

That's what the 70-300mm L is for... shooting wide open at 300mm, on a 4-5.6 lens, and it being sharp at the pixel level.

[ahab1372]

On a crop camera, I recommend the EF-S 55-250mm if on a budget - best value for the money. The 70-300 non-L is not really an upgrade in terms of IQ in my opinion and not worth the extra money over the EF-S. Even if IQ is ok when stopped down - I rarely had use cases for shooting at 200mm or longer at f8 or f11. It probably depends on what you shoot, but for me that rarely happens. AF is not much better, if at all, than the EF-S lens.
So for a real upgrade in terms of IQ and AF, it is one of the 70-200s or the 70-300L (cannot speak to the Tamron)

[Dave Throgmartin]

The OP is trying to get better pics without spending a large sum of $$$, as nice as the 70-300L is, it is a large amount of cash more than 70-300 IS or Tamron 70-300.

Arnt's suggestion of the 55-250 is a lost cost way to get there, but 250 can still be kind of short...

Dave

[ahab1372]

The OP is trying to get better pics without spending a large sum of $$$, as nice as the 70-300L is, it is a large amount of cash more than 70-300 IS or Tamron 70-300.

That's true. I just would not expect a significant improvement with the 70-300 non-L (Unfortunately the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM is not available in the image quality comparison tool). Bryan recommends the 70-200 f/4L as an upgrade http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx. Even with an extender, it will be better than the 75-300, so sedwards already had the right idea asking about this lens.

Arnt's suggestion of the 55-250 is a lost cost way to get there, but 250 can still be kind of short...

To add to that point: I would not recommend replacing the current lens with the EF-S 55-250. Instead, I would stick it out until I have the funds available for one of the 70-200 options, maybe with an extender if more focal length is needed.

EF-S 55-250 is great if you don't have any tele zoom yet, and if you are not sure if you want or can spend the money for one of the better options (it was my gateway drug )

[Dave Throgmartin]

That's true. I just would not expect a significant improvement with the 70-300 non-L (Unfortunately the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM is not available in the image quality comparison tool). Bryan recommends the 70-200 f/4L as an upgrade http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx. Even with an extender, it will be better than the 75-300, so sedwards already had the right idea asking about this lens.


To add to that point: I would not recommend replacing the current lens with the EF-S 55-250. Instead, I would stick it out until I have the funds available for one of the 70-200 options, maybe with an extender if more focal length is needed.

EF-S 55-250 is great if you don't have any tele zoom yet, and if you are not sure if you want or can spend the money for one of the better options (it was my gateway drug )

I've used the 75-300 USM III and eventually sold it. In my opinion, the other lenses on the list would all be a fairly big step up including the 55-250.

Dave

[conropl]

...EF-S 55-250... ( it was my gateway drug )

Me too