I just can't make up my mind...

[Paul Giancola]

Ok, last week I received a 28-135 IS and am liking it very much. No complaints on this lens it is proving itself to be a great general purpose lens for family functions and the like. I especially like the medium range of the lens. Let me just say I am still building my lens collection and the 28-135 IS is my first lens outside of the Kit lens so far.

However...there is always a however....

I am going to be the official photographer for my son's little league this summer and know the 28-135 will not be long enough so here is my thing.

Should I hold on to the 28-135 IS and get the 70-200 f4L or get the 70-300 IS which I see is getting some good reviews?

I really want an L but can't afford to go lens crazy at the moment. I need to be strategic and choose carefully. I know the L is of higher quality, etc. but the 70-300 IS might be a bit more useful when shooting indoor activities from a distance. I'm thinking the IS would be nice giving me a couple extra stops.

If I were to go with the 70-300 IS I could return the 28-135 IS and upgrade, where if I went to the 70-200 f4L I would keep the 28-135 IS. I'm trying to be fiscally responsible but get the best lens possible.

Man I wish I could by everything I want. :)

[aparmley]

If the choice is between the 70-200 F4 or the 70-300 IS only, I'd say get the 70-200 F4L - why? One reason - focus speed. You'll need the focus speed to get the shots you want. If the only reason your interested in the 70-300 IS is the 200-300mm range + the IS they will be virtually useless for your purpose. You might read a few people recommend the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM and that might be a great option for you if you have time to play the exchange game should you get a copy with focus issues - but I hear once those are worked out or if you get a great copy right out of the gate, that lens is fabulous. Me, personally, would rather pay another couple hundred and get the best canon has to offer in the 70-200 F2.8 - for 100% satisfaction with a higher probability that I'll get a great copy first go. I'd pay extra to not have to play the "Obtain RMA, pay to ship it back, wait for it to be calibrate, wait for it to ship back" game.

[adam75south]

i'd have to say the L as well. i know everyone is on the 70-300 IS bandwagon for the most part, but this lens is built solid, focuses extremely fast, and the colors turn out amazing.

[NewTekBuzz]

id say hold out fot the 100-400 L that would be a good choice for your needs, less overlap in range. congrats on the new lens..... it really is a sickness :)

[cdifoto]

L for focus speed but neither of those lenses you're considering will do you a lick of good when you get indoors. You'll need to start thinking about fast primes at that point.

[DonSchap]

If you shoot indoors ... f/2.8 ... or better. It's a simple rule of thumb and you get your shot. The arguments go back and forth, but when you need light ... nothing but nothing beats APERTURE!

Such is the nature of light :cool:

Now ... go get that wallet.

[cwphoto]

Little League is Baseball for kids right?

I'd say 70-200/4. I don't often agree with aparmley, but he says some good things here.

I do something similar for my son's football team, and found the 70-200 range to be great.

PS. I actually usually do agree with aparmley - just being a nuisance.