Canon Lens 70-300mm vs 200mm L

[Tenzin'sMom]

I seek advice, oh ye wise ones! I'm wanting a lens with a longer reach and am going a little bit bonkers reading reviews. Have read a bunch of the DPS threads on this topic, but none exactly address my concerns, so I thank you for your patience in dealing with this eternal question one more time.

I'll be using it primarily for kids sports and for nature/landscape/birds. Of course I want perfect sharpness, beautiful bokeh, small and lightweight, and around $500! Here are the options I'm considering with prices from the canon site (so I'm hoping to do a little better!):

1. EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, $649.99, 3.0 in. x 5.6 in., 22.2 oz. I like the idea that it has IS so that I might be able to get off a quick handheld shot. I like the flexibility of a zoom.

2. EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM, $470.00, 2.9" x 4.8", 1.2 lbs. Hmmm. Great price. Do I really need that IS?

3. EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM, $819.99, 3.3" x 5.4", 1.7 lbs. An L lens! I could stretch to the price, but really don't want to go much beyond this. No IS. Not a zoom. But, wow -- sharpness, bokeh, not too heavy, and f/2.8. Is the 2.8 really going to be a big advantage? What about the 200mm vs 300 mm on the XSi body -- a big difference? Guess I could always add an extension tube, huh? I'm tempted.

4. I'm also intrigued by this one, and wonder if I should wait and save my pennies:
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, $1399.00 3.2 x 3.9 in., 25.4 oz. It's got that IS and I really love the small size. Really love that! But yikes, the price! And the reviews seem to indicate a sort of funky bokeh -- not sure about that.

Any others that you think I should consider? Any questions you think I should be asking myself about this? A big, big thank you in advance for your insights.

[Bluenoser]

While I can't really help you a lot with all the choices you have listed, I can tell you that I own #4 and am more than pleased with the results. I've read the reviews and most call it an "average" lens at best, as in it gets average results. Well, my experience has been it's a "good" lens that gives me "good" results.

Having said that, please realise that I am a hobbyist with about 1 1/12 years experience with DSLR's and Lenses. Maybe it is "average" and I just haven't seen "good" yet.

Anyway, just wanted to pass on my thoughts.

[gturner]

If you are prepared to go to $1300 - look at 70-200 L F4 IS or the 2.8 non-IS

I can tell you from experience that the L makes a massive difference and more so with IS. Tracking speeds, colour vibrancy, build quality, resale all work in your favour.
Consider the 70-200 F4 non-IS for the best value zoom going

The DO lens is expensive for a pretty slow lens.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Tenzin'sMom

I seek advice, oh ye wise ones!

Boy, have you got us wrong!

... I'll be using it primarily for kids sports and for nature/landscape/birds. Of course I want perfect sharpness, beautiful bokeh, small and lightweight, and around $500! Here are the options I'm considering with prices from the canon site...

First off, you may want to see the prices on Amazon, B&H, or Adorama. Those are going to be a bit nicer than the MSRPs.

I like the idea that it has IS so that I might be able to get off a quick handheld shot.

Ok, maybe we need to review what IS is about. It's not about getting the shot off quickly. It's about reducing camera-shake blur. And you still need to have good handholding technique. It will not actually help you freeze action shots. For that you need a wider max. aperture to get the higher shutter speed. IS is good for still subject matter or at easing the 1/focal_length rule. The USM is what will help you autofocus quickly.

3. EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM... Is the 2.8 really going to be a big advantage? What about the 200mm vs 300 mm on the XSi body -- a big difference?

Yes, the f/2.8 is going to be a big advantage. It's the borderline for what's called "available light" shooting, that is, shooting without a flash indoors. But 200mm without IS means you'll still have to get a shutter speed of 1/200s or faster to elminate camera shake (that's what the 1/focal_length rule is about).

As for the 200mm vs. 300mm difference, try this demo out. Yes, it will make a difference.

EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, $1399.00 3.2 x 3.9 in., 25.4 oz. It's got that IS and I really love the small size. Really love that! But yikes, the price! And the reviews seem to indicate a sort of funky bokeh -- not sure about that.

A very funky lens, and typically "not worth it" unless you HAVE to have the small size. The DO works much much better in the 400 IS prime, but that's way past the price point most people can afford.

Any others that you think I should consider?

70-200 f/4L USM (non-IS). It is almost exactly what you're asking for up there: perfect sharpness, beautiful bokeh, small, and lightweight (well, compared to the other great whites), and $640.

If the sports are outside daylight sports and not whizzingly fast, then the $250 EF-S 55-250 IS might be worth looking at. It's made to companion the EF-S 18-55 kit lens. It's max. aperture is relatively slow, so indoors sports or stage shooting would be tough with it, and it doesn't have USM, so it won't autofocus with blinding speed, but the optical quality is good (if not as good as the 70-300 IS (non-DO) or 70-200 f/4L USM), and it has IS, and it's tiny and light in comparison to the other choices.

I'd also recommend reading about maximum aperture and the effect it can have.

[RichardTaylor]

I own the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
It is my travel zoom of choice. as it is not too large and has a bit of reach
IQ more then meets my needs for prints up to A4 and web publishing.
Ok for kids sport, nature/landscape a bit short for birds.

I also own the 70-200 f/4L USM (non-IS) and agree with Inkista. It is a beautiful lens both optically and mechanically (very fast focussing). Excellent for kids sport, depending how far they are away from you, nature/landscape and much too short for most birds.

The EF-S 55-250 is good value for money and small & light but that is it.
(I own one)

For birds you will need 400mm minimum.
Here is why (these pics were taken at 400mm with a 1.6 crop camera (40D)



and


Now days I use a Canon 100-400 F4.5-F5.6 IS L lens for both birding and motor sport etc. It can get very heavy when hand holding after a while so it is normally used on a mono pod.


When purchasing Canon non L lenses be sure to budget for a lens hood.

[Tenzin'sMom]

Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful responses -- I appreciate your insights.

I had thought quite a bit about the 70-200L before my first post, but it's starting to get a bit big for me to lug around. It's still there in the back of my mind, though! I guess that's part of why the 200L appeals -- it's actually a couple of ounces heavier, but more than an inch shorter, which does make a difference to me. And I do like the idea of the f/2.8. It would be a good choice for nature photos, but perhaps the 70-300 would be better for kids sports, to be able to get those sideline shots as well -- don't want to change lenses in the middle of a soccer game.

When I talk about getting a quick shot, I'm thinking less about the action of the subject and more about not wanting to go to the bother of setting up the tripod or finding a way to brace myself and the lens to eliminate camera shake, so that's why I think the IS would make a difference for me.

Here's the funny part of L lenses for me (yes, I know you Nikon lovers will laugh) -- I'm just reluctant to have that big white thing on my camera because of the attention it will draw. Having recently moved to a DSLR from a little P&S, I'm feeling the increased attention as it is. So having the 200L be black is another point in its favor. (Why couldn't Canon give us a color choice? How hard could that be?)

Anyhow, thanks for letting me think out loud here. I'm not in a rush, so will probably keep changing my mind 50 more times or so!

[lputman]

I've used the 70-300 for outdoor daytime sports for the past two years and I love it. I need now a 300 f/2.8 for outdoor sports to be able to shoot at night. They cost lots but I've got at least 4 years of high school football left for my kids to shoot.

[daft_biker]

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

When purchasing Canon non L lenses be sure to budget for a lens hood.

Some non L lenses do come with hoods......but not for the lenses being discussed AFAIK.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Tenzin'sMom

...I guess that's part of why the 200L appeals -- it's actually a couple of ounces heavier, but more than an inch shorter, which does make a difference to me. And I do like the idea of the f/2.8.

It's a great lens, and akin to the 135L. The problem here is that it's a prime, and for sports, where kids are running around the field, if you can't run around, too, you're going to be very limited on framing choices. I'd actually recommend getting the $100 EF 50mm f/1.8 II just to see if you like shooting with a prime lens and zooming with your feet, before going for a longer lens like a 200mm.

When I talk about getting a quick shot, I'm thinking less about the action of the subject and more about not wanting to go to the bother of setting up the tripod or finding a way to brace myself and the lens to eliminate camera shake, so that's why I think the IS would make a difference for me.

Ah. Google "monopod". I think of mine as three-stop-IS-in-a-stick. And it's good for all my lenses.

Here's the funny part of L lenses for me (yes, I know you Nikon lovers will laugh) -- I'm just reluctant to have that big white thing on my camera because of the attention it will draw. Having recently moved to a DSLR from a little P&S, I'm feeling the increased attention as it is. So having the 200L be black is another point in its favor. (Why couldn't Canon give us a color choice? How hard could that be?)

Because that would make them just like Nikon (who does offer the choice between black and gray). The main reasoning for the white barrels is to cut down on barrel expansion due to heat screwing up element alignment Or, so they say. It could just be a marketing thing. And if you think the 70-200 f/4 is big and heavy, try the f/2.8 version. Or the 100-400L.

The thing is, even if you get a black L, it'll still make you big and conspicuous. Most Canon Ls use a 77mm filter. That's one big glass eye to have pointed at you. Most of my friends sort of rear back in terror (ok, are mildly startled) when I point my 24-105L at them. And it's smaller than the 200L and black. Once you buy an L, you will be conspicuous. Period. There's no two ways around it. Doesn't matter which L. Doesn't really matter if it's black or white.

But, as you say, you're already conspicuous with a dSLR. You get used to it, and the big bag o' glass, and other people being amazed you have such big lenses. I shoot with the 400L at zoos, and crack up when people refer to it as a big lens, as it's the smallest and lightest 400mm there is and I can handhold it, and to me a big lens is one that comes with its own carrying case with latches and a handle and requires a tripod with a Wimberly head. It's all relative.

You might want to consider renting a few lenses to see what's a good fit for you.

[Tenzin'sMom]

Well, I'm approaching a decision here. Many thanks to all of you for your thoughts -- it's very helpful to hear your perspectives. Reading your advice has helped me to focus on thinking about lenses over the long term, not just for right now.

I think I'll start with the 70-300mm. It's easily in my price range, has both IS and USM, and is smaller and lighter than the L's. I like what Richard said about having a "travel zoom of choice," and Lori, I peeked at some of your wonderful kids sports photos on Flickr and know that it will sure be an improvement on using my current 18-135mm walk-around lens for sports.

I'm thinking that after a year or two with this lens, I'll have a better sense on what focal length(s) I really will get the most use out of when I move to L's.

Inkista, your posts have been so helpful -- I really appreciate your advice, and seem to be moving already in some of the directions you've suggested. I've been using the 50mm f/1.4 for a couple of weeks now, and really like the results I'm getting, though there is a learning curve of course. I'm sure I'll end up with some L primes, just a matter of figuring out which. And since Santa brought me a monopod for Christmas, I'm going to have fun with that for those quick, low light shots.

Thanks again to all of you, and best wishes for much joy and many wonderful photos in 2010.