choosing btwn two great zoom lenses: what's ur vote?

[moneypenny02]

Okay, so I've been posting on this forum getting suggestions as to good quality zoom lenses for a trip to Kenya (and long term, but a safari trip is the main purpose it will be used for in the near future). Based on your suggestions (and the unavailability of my 1st choice--due to its price), I was planning on getting the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. HOWEVER, I know the legendary quality of the L lenses, and I saw that the EF 70-200mm f/4L was selling for about the same price right now.

Im mostly going to be hand-holding, and its going to be on a Rebel XTi. This is the only zoom lens that I am going to have at least for a few years (cus santa won't be kind 2 years in a row & I'm still a student so I won't be able to afford to support this habit for a while!).

I checked out some of the sample shots that people had posted on Amazon (I know, probably not the best source, but you take what you can get), and the L photos were MUCH better, but that also might be because they were taken by more experienced photographers. They also weren't good to get a relative sense of the length of the zooms.

Im definitely a newbie, and I need to tell my family which lens I would like for Christmas ahead of time, so any advice or insight based on your experiences will be very much appreciated!!

So what's your vote and why::confused:
the EF 70-200mm f/4L or EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS?

[fractalgfx]

Look at it this way: You won't be happy with the 70-200 F4L If you can't hold it steady enough for sharp pictures. If you have reasonably steady hands, that shouldn't be a problem in bright daylight.

Don't overlook the extra 100mm reach of the 70-300. Based on my experience shooting wildlife, you will regret the loss of the the extra 100mm if you go with the 70-200.

Personally I would rent a high end lens for the safari, and save up to buy something like the 70-200 F4L IS and a 1.4x teleconvertor.

[24Peter]

I've owned both lenses and based on your needs and experience level I wouldn't even consider the 70-200 F4 L. Definitely go for the 70-300 IS. You'll definitely want the extra reach (though ideally you'd want even more zoom - 400mm+) and ability to shoot even when the light of day begins to fade (animals are more active early morning or late afternoon, no?). IMO you will be very unhappy with the 70-200.

[TheWengler]

Ideally I'd choose the Canon 100-400mm but since the cost is double and the additional size/weight is significant my vote is for the 70-300.

[coldrain]

I agree that for your uses you WILL need the extra tele range... 200mm really does not get you all that far.

A 70-200 f4 L IS USM with Soligor 1.7x TC might be a bit better, but it is also twice the price (and havier, bulkier).

So... for now, for your uses, the 70-300 IS is the best choice. And it is a very nice lens.

[moneypenny02]

Thanks for the input all. I will definitely defer to your experience and stick with the 70-300 IS.

Thanks!! :)

[DonSchap]

While not the fastest focusing lens I've ever seen, the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is the best in its class for sharpness and focus. It also isn't painted white, so it should draw less attention to you while you are over in Kenya.

2 solid reasons enough that should be enough to justify buying it and using it.

Good luck with your new lens ... and post something when you get back. :D

[Viky]

Go for the 70-300 IS... you'll be most happy:)

Check out this pic taken with the same lens last week...

1/160s, f/8, ISO 1600, 170mm

[coldrain]

Go for the 70-300 IS... you'll be most happy:)

Check out this pic taken with the same lens last week...

1/160s, f/8, ISO 1600, 170mm
The smaller weight, and the bigger reach of the 70-300 IS give you more chance to make a run for it and tell the story :D:cool:;)

[Rhys]

I have the 70-300 IS. It's good for the price I paid. There are problems though - on mine the IS can go a little awry. I switched the camera on and looked through the viewfinder because the lens started vibrating and making a noise to see the image leaping about wildly. The IS was stabilising when there was no movement. It only happened the once but it could be indicative of a potential problem. CA at 300mm is not as good as on my old Tamron 70-300. Focussing is faster though. Generally, I'd say that if you have the money for a 70-200 f4L then go for it. The constant aperture is a lot nicer to work with than the variable f4-f5.6. By the time you get to 300mm at f5.6 it's either a case of using a high ISO or holding rock steady. The IS helps but not that much. It's a lot better on the 17-85 IS at stabilisation. If I were buying again, I would not buy the 70-300 f4-5.6IS. I bought it because I didn't feel I could justify the cost of a 70-200 f4 IS (twice the price) as most of my photography is done with either a Canon 17-85 IS or a Tamron 28-75.

[coldrain]

It is total nonsense to say CA is worse on a canon EF 70-300 IS USM than some Tamron 70-300mm.

Just plain mis-information.

The EF 70-300 IS USM is not known for any CA issues at all, it is a lot sharper and contrasty than said Tamron lens. The Tamron actually DOES have a CA problem.

And since when do you have an EF 70-300 IS USM? If you actually do have one, and you do see something wrong with it, post a crop of the problem. That will help identify the problem, which might be handy to let Canon repair your obviously faulty sample.

And IS does not help that much? Pardon??? The IS on the 70-300 IS has a 3 stop efficiency... that makes f5.6 into f2!!!

Anyway... no, the 70-300 IS does not have a CA problem, and no, the 70-300 from tamron can not reach its quality in any way, and no, the 70-200 f4 L is not a better option, and no, the constant f4 is not anything worthwhile, and yes, the 70-300 IS is f5 at 200mm.

[fractalgfx]

A 70-200 f4 L IS USM with Soligor 1.7x TC might be a bit better, but it is also twice the price (and havier, bulkier).

the 70-200 f4 L is not a better option, and no, the constant f4 is not anything worthwhile, and yes, the 70-300 IS is f5 at 200mm.

If you say so.

[coldrain]

If you say so.
Really hard to read, isn't it.
The 70-200 f4 L USM is not the same as the 70-200 f4 L IS USM.
Since you may not know it, the 70-200 f4 L IS USM has... image stabilization.
The 70-200 f4 L does not.

So now you may take a guess why the 70-200 f4 L USM would not be a better idea than the 70-300 IS, for the question asker.

And why the 70-200 f4 L IS USM may be a better combo with a TC, but also a lot pricier, as stated.

[moneypenny02]

The smaller weight, and the bigger reach of the 70-300 IS give you more chance to make a run for it and tell the story :D:cool:;)

True! Surviving is the best part of a vacation!!

[sunnythepsychocat]

Don't own any of those lenses, so cannot comment on either of them.
I would say go for 100-400mm, which is a more versatile lens, like you can use later for air show or at zoo.
Just a word of advice on lens buying philosophy. Buy the best lens that fits your need and you will only buy once and be happy for a long time. Instead of spending money on second-rated lenses that will eventually equal to that one good lens that you should have got at first place and being unhappy for a long time;)

[a race fan]

I agree with the rent option and the last poster about saving up for the lens that you want, and not just getting one as quick as possible.

But, its ultimately your decision. Good Luck!

[nqjudo]

I can't say that I completely agree on the 100 - 400. It is a fine lens and all but it is far from perfect and not for everyone. The design is dated. I didn't like the friction ring and the IS is of the 1st generation. It's good for 1 - 1.5 stops max. The lens is also a little soft @ 400mm - something that you will use a lot of shooting wildlife. I did some comparisons between the 100 - 400 and the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC. I got consistently sharper results with the 300 + TC @ 420mm than the 100 - 400 @ 400mm and of course the IS was more efficient with the 300 + TC combo. These were just my results so it could have been my copy of the 100 - 400 that was a little soft but I have heard this from a lot of users.

Far better than the 100 - 400, for me anyway, is the combination that I am using now. I go out with the 1.4x TC, the 300 F/4 IS and the 70 - 200 F/4 IS. I cover longer, shorter and sharper than the 100 - 400 at the expense of the odd lens change. A fair trade off in my books. Not that the 100 - 400 doesn't have its place but I think that a huge part of the user community would be ecstatic if Canon updated the design and improved sharpness at the long end.

[Rhys]

If you say so.

Gee, it'd be nice if Canon realised that their $1,000 70-200 f4L IS is not as good as their $500 70-300 f4-5.6 and maybe brought the price down to 50c so that we could all have one. L stands for "luxury" - hence the higher optical, electrical and mechanical quality.

[24Peter]

I had a dream last night (actually more like this morning) that I had a 70-300 IS on my 40D and someone was playing with the camera when I wasn't around and dropped it and literally broke the lens. When I came back, I found my camera with the trashed lens. It was right before some kind of important video trade show and I was going to shoot stills with it. I gathered everyone in my group together and announced what happened, and lo and behold, someone stepped up and said they did it and would make good.

At one point in the dream I thought I should get a second camera as a backup - either the 5D or its replacement.

Now lest you think all I dream about at night are cameras and lenses, there were three very cute girls travelling around with me in my dream. They were like part of my team. :D

And as they say, "then I woke up". Alone again, naturally. :(

[DonSchap]

AH yes ... the "Dream Team"

Look, aside from what the rest of you may think ... if you want to take good images and not have to fight with your equipment, you just buy good equipment and eliminate the problem.

Yes, it takes real money ... well, kind of. Now you know why they invented "plastic." You buy the equipment with the plastic and then go shoot. I figure that's pretty plain and simple. Perhaps just a little irresponsible, but it gets the job DONE!

What to buy?

I'd say the contest is really over before you begin ... the Nikon D300 and a couple of good VR lenses of your choosing.

If you are just ready to go ... this is just as ready to play. Why settle for less? Don't screw around, your images are counting on it. :cool:

[coldrain]

Don, you are being very silly again. Why on earth would you advice this person the very complex D300 which has no advantages over the camera she is taking? Just to be difficult? To tell her to spend more for the same, and to have to lug more weight around on vacation?

You probably just want other people to have the noise reduction softness your A700 gives you? :p

Do not make every thread into these obfuscating rants...

[moneypenny02]

hmmm...I'm sure we would love to have the best equipment possible--I know the XTi isn't top of the line, but I like it, and its what I could afford right now---hence it makes me happy. And what also makes me happy is avoiding bankruptcy. So, to that end, I will take the advice I got here and ask santa (aka ALL of my relatives) to bring me the 70-300 IS, enjoy my trip, and continue to give whatever money I have to the rent man, or the federal government in repayment of my law school loans!! :cool:

[JTL]

hmmm...I'm sure we would love to have the best equipment possible--I know the XTi isn't top of the line, but I like it, and its what I could afford right now---hence it makes me happy. Ah...but the XTi is top of its class. It is the most completely spec'ed entry-level dslr currently on the market. Ain't nothin' wrong with that! :)

[JTL]

the Nikon D300 and a couple of good VR lenses of your choosing.

If you are just ready to go ... this is just as ready to play. Why settle for less?Insane. Obivously you have lost the ability to actually read the questions people are asking.:rolleyes:

You are now officially a troll.

[Spookonthe8ball]

Moneypenny02. Trust us. The Xti and 70-300 IS will work fine. Get better composition than this example and you'll be fine. Proof is in the pudding.
70mm shot of a playful cougar at the OKC zoo. This guy was moving it on and I got a partial shot before he turned to run after his mate again. Fired off the hip so to speak to avoid the fence and retaining wires.
Spook

[drama]

I have got some exceptional images from the 70 200 f4 & so has cold rain, but IS is king & the extra reach is very useful

The 70 200 IS, now that is a different story but it comes at a price
On your budget, I would suggest the 70 300 IS too

The XTI is a fine camera too to pair it with, you could also consider the new Canon 55 250 IS, which is a bit cheaper & just as sharp

[Vich]

I agree with the rent option and the last poster about saving up for the lens that you want, and not just getting one as quick as possible.

But, its ultimately your decision. Good Luck!
Renting for a week may not be so wise financially. You could likely buy just about any $1000 lens used and resell it a year later loosing less than a week's rental fee.

I agree with the 300mm choice, esp on that lens since it has decent image quality, almost indistinguishable from the 70-300 IS to the untrained eye.

The 70-200 f4 (both versions) have superb optics, but the difference between 200mm and 300mm on a crop camera is vast! If you try using a Solidor 1.7 TC you'll loose a stop anyway, and without IS and in an idling vehicle, it would be a poorer choice.

I've not used the 70-300 so my main question not answerable by sample images is the AF speed and accuracy. It could get real annoying to deal with a 2 or 3 second delay for each frame, or to be switching constantly to manual focus to avoid it.

[coldrain]

The AF speed of the 70-300 IS is fine, Vich. It focuses in a split second. I know some people have made out it to be very slow (like Don Schap), but that is not the truth. Sure, some lenses are even faster... the AF in a blink of an eye. Does not make the 70-300 IS slow though.

[RichNY]

The AF speed of the 70-300 IS is fine, Vich. It focuses in a split second. I know some people have made out it to be very slow (like Don Schap), but that is not the truth. Sure, some lenses are even faster... the AF in a blink of an eye. Does not make the 70-300 IS slow though.

Glad to see your not naming names ;)

Everyone I know who owns the 70-300 is very happy with it. Personally I think you might find 300mm to be a little bit to short; I needed 400mm to take quite a few of the images I captured at the zoo. My suggestion would be to purchase a used Canon 100-400 for about $1200 and sell it when you return from your trip- you should be able to recoup 100% of your investment and will have just been out the extra cash during your trip. Purchase your 70-300 when you return.

Alternatively you can go with the 70-300 and also bring along a digicam like the S3IS which will give you focal lengths up to 420mm. Use it for the situations where you need the extra reach. Actually I think I prefer this choice as it gives you a backup camera just in case... It would be a shame to be on such a great vacation and find yourself unable to take any images.

The biggest down side I see to the 70-300 is if you are planning to use a polarizing lens as you will need to readjust it each time you zoom in or out.

[DonSchap]

That's an excellent point, Rich ... you could buy highly-desireable/high-end equipment and resell it upon return from assignment. That would alleviate "troll-dom" and allow the OP to obtain an excellent chance of getting the shot.

Good show! :D

[Rhys]

The 70-300 f4-5.6 IS lens is capable of taking decent images. It's a lot easier to take decent images with the 70-200 f4L IS and it's also possible to take better images with the 70-200 F4L IS. The point is that with the extra money spent on the 70-200 F4L IS you're buying possibilities that don't exist with non-L glass. You're buying ease of use (which makes a huge difference to a pro) and higher quality glass. Sure - the amateur might get excellent images from non-L but a more advanced photographer will appreciate the enhancements offered by the L glass. Why else do most pros have L glass? It's not because it's a white lens. It's for the image quality and ease of use.

I'll admit - I don't possess any L glass at the moment. I am, however, considering getting some L glass though.

I like my 70-300 f4-5.6 IS lens and my 17-85 IS lens BUT I have a Tamron 28-75 for portraits etc.