difference between 200mm and 300mm thinking of selling 300mm

[rickp1]

Ok, I'm sitting at home doing a bit of brain storming about my lenses and this is what I'm thinking.

First off, i'm using a Canon 50D. with the 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lens. Now I also have the kit lens that came with the camera 28-135mm and also a 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM.

So what i was thinking was to get rid off both those lenses and getting the 70-200mm f2.8 lens that everyone seem to rave about. Selling both of the lenses would help pay for the 200mm since it's not cheap by any means. What do you guys think?

The 17-55mm has pretty much replaced the 28-135mm and the 70-300mm loses sharpness at the higher zoom settings so I'm on the fence abou it.
What i am concerned with though, and probably out of ignorace is losing that 100mm zoom. I like that extra reach. Hence the topic question. Is that extra zoom that much of a big deal?

Thanks in advance.
R.

[cphoniball]

Yes, it's a good idea. Even after selling the two lenses though, be prepared to cough up some money. Also, keep in mind that Canon may be coming out with a new 70-200 very soon.

There are other options to keep in mind as well. If you don't need the large-aperture, the 70-200 f4 is an insanely sharp zoom for a much more manageable price. If you're really afraid of losing the extra reach, and again you don't need large apertures, the 100-400 4-5.6 IS is supposed to be a very good lens. That'll give you even more reach than you're using currently, obviously.

We could probably give you better advice on what lens exactly to get if you told us what types of pictures you usually take.

[wulf]

Does it make a difference to you. How many of your pictures have been taken in the 200-300mm range? Do you think you would have been happy with the results at no more than 200mm (and is the 70-200 reputed to be sharp all the way through its range)?

Perhaps go on a photo walk and limit yourself to only 70-200mm?

Wulf

[rickp1]

good questions. I dont have a lot in that range to be honest, but i do like the ability to take them in that range should I need to. That's the reason for my concern about the 100mm difference. Again maybe it's not a big deal.
As for the sharpness all the way through question, I would guess so, I've not come across that comment or review anywhere.

[Ray Dockrey]

I shoot Nikon but went through the same thing. I got a 80-200 2.8 and used it so much I sold my 70-300 thinking I didn't need it anymore. Three weeks later I missed it so much I bought another 70-300. I shoot lots of different things and I loved the additional reach for shooting birds and other things that are hard to get close too. Most of that stuff i shoot during the day in plenty of light so the slower lens wasn't an issue.

[smc1377]

Technically, the difference between 200mm and 300mm is hardly anything at all. It's only a 2.5 degree angle of view difference.

Go to the following website, use the sliders and you'll see that 200 and 300 isn't that much of a difference.

Focal length comparison tool, Tamron USA

[ARKreations]

I have both an 80-200 f/2.8 and a 70-300 (Nikon).
I find that when I need the faster glass, the 80-200 is plenty. And when I want the 200-300 zoom, the slower lens is more than adequate. So for me, the pair is a great balance.

[rickp1]

Well I guess we'll find out soon. I placed the order for the 200mm lens today. When it comes in I'm planning on selling the 300.

One of you guys had a great point, with the better image quality of the 200mm lens i can always crop and get the difference that's missing between the 2 lenses.

Again thanks for input.

R.

[inkista]

Well, except for the fact that the 70-300 is small, light, stealthy black, and stabilized. Here's a good side-by-side comparison of the 70-300 and the 70-200 f/4L USM. Essentially, if you want image quality more than anything, the 70-200L is the better lens. But the 70-300 may be more convenient.