Help! Novice choosing a first lens!

I have a Digital Rebel XT (along with the standard 18-55mm lens it came with)

and am looking to upgrade.

 

Thoughts on (both Canon):

1) EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM

2) 70-200 f/4 L

 

Taking a trip to South Africa in January and want to get a new lens for the

trip. Generally I take a lot of outdoor shots, whether its people, landscapes,

animals, city imagery, etc.

 

I'm leaning towards #1, and the reviews I'm reading are good. Is there a major

quality jump to the "L-series?" Will I be missing out if I get a lower

aperture lens?

 

Thanks!

Hi,

I had the same problem some months ago. I read many review and see some test 70-300 Vs. 70-200 L. then I bought the 70-300. The IS is fantastic. I get shart image at 300mm and 1/30 sec. The better quality is reached by f/9. I also bought 28-75 2.8 Tamron.

Anyway for Africa Adeventures, many prefer to have the 100-400 L or other fixed L lens and Tele converters. But the price rise very much.

 

Ciao and Happy Christmas.

Simone

The difference in image quality between an L lense and its non-L counterpart will astound you. The resolution, colour clarity and contrast are light years ahead with an L lens. Buy the fastest version you can afford. If you can't afford the IS as well, then opt for the faster lens. You will be amazed at your results!

<br>

Cheers.

While Rick's comments are usually true, by almost all accounts, these two lenses are about the same for image quality. The 70-300 is surprisingly good.

 

The 70-200 f4L is built far better, focuses faster and has a one stop larger aperture at the long end. The 70-300 has more reach and image stabilization. I went with the 70-300. It's quite good if you don't abuse your equipment.

You face two issues if you go on safari: unless you go to a private game reserve (where the rangers usually manage to get you quite close to the animals), you need reach - and for birds and some of the smaller, shier animals, you need even more reach. Secondly, even in daylight, you can benefit from using flash as fill (and on night game drives flash is essential) - and that benefits from having a wider aperture available given the subject distances. The flash problem can be mostly solved by using a Better Beamer that focusses the flash beam on a hotshoe flash for 200mm+ focal lengths on an XT - but it can be tricky to aim the flash if you are also using the flash on an OCSC 2 extension cord in a bid to avoid yellow eye (the animal equivalent of redeye). That said, I'd go with the 70-300.

1. Either lens will not be an upgrade to your kit lens as they cover different ranges. They will complement it.

 

2. For safari "the more the better" so the 70-300 will be a lot more useful than a 70-200 lens. If you can (cost and weight wise) spring to the 100-400 IS then it will be much better for that.

 

3. The IQ of these specific two is identical.

 

4. Getting a tele lens without IS is not recommended unless you constantly shoot in with a lot of light or use a tripod.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Anil, watch yourself in South Africa. The crime situation is pretty bad and also spilling over to common tourist spots, i.e. beaches, parks, mountain walks. These incidents are of course quite rare but still happen, so don't flash your camera around when not in use and take common sense precautions. Its absolutely beautiful though, stunning in fact. In my opinion, Cape Town is definitely amongst the most stunning places you or anyone will ever see - make sure you go there!

Dave

I have the 70-300 IS, and I absolutely recommend it over the 70-200 4L, In your situation.

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm" >HERE</a> is a review of that lens.<p>

 

If you read some review of L series zoom lens in that site, you'll see the resolution of the 70-300 IS is on par. Some L zoom are worst actually, but likely due to bad copies.

<p>To clarify Yakim's comment, the addition of either lens will upgrade your <i>lens

kit</i>, but not your <i>kit lens</i>. That bit of silliness out of the way... ;-)

 

<p>I can't speak to the 70-300, having no direct experience with it. I do use the f/4

70-200

on a crop sensor body, and I can confirm that it is a fine lens optically and in terms of

construction and operation.

 

<p>One question to think through is how important the extra 100mm reach is (or is not)

for

you. On your XT 200mm is equivalent to using a 320mm lens on a full-frame/film SLR.

That is a pretty long reach and may be long enough for you - but that is something you'll

have to figure out.

 

<p>As with most things photographic, it is a matter of trade-offs. Each lens has some

positives and the trick is figuring out which line up best with your needs and expectations

and budget.

 

<p>Good luck!

 

<p>Dan

I have both the 70-300mm IS and the 70-200mm F4 "L". The image quality is very similar from both. The build of the 70-200mm F4 is superior, and it has nice features like a non-rotating front, fast USM ring focus, constant F4 aperture, and fixed physical length. The 70-300mm IS does not have these features but it does have extra reach and IS which are extremely powerful, and the color of black makes it less noticeable. I find that I do not use the 70-200mm F4 much now that I have the 70-300mm IS. I think for your situation the extra reach will be beneficial. The IS will help a great deal too. While some can, I cannot always handhold the 70-200mm F4 steady enough at 200mm to get the best from it. Obviously that is not a problem with the 70-300mm even at 300mm because of the IS. Some complain about IS in that it doesn't work well with moving subjects but that isn't always the case -- The 70-300mm IS had two modes of IS, the 2nd mode allows for panning moving objects and it works really well.

 

Good luck on your trip.

To update my response - after reading the one before this one - I'd have to agree that the IS

lens will probably be better for you if you aren't getting the IS 70-200 and you don't use a

tripod. If you are a tripod shooter the balance might be a bit different depending upon how

you feel about having 200mm be your longest length.

>> Anil, watch yourself in South Africa. The crime situation is pretty bad and also spilling over to common tourist spots, i.e. beaches, parks, mountain walks. These incidents are of course quite rare but still happen, so don't flash your camera around when not in use and take common sense precautions.

 

Another point for the 70-300 IS. As it is black, it attracts a lot less attention.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Wow, thanks to everyone for your reply. I really appreciate the feedback. Based on your advice and experience I'm strongly leaning towards the IS lens.

 

If anyone is still reading...is there a major difference between the f/4-5.6 of the 70-300 IS lens and the fixed f/4 of the 70-200 L series lens?

 

I'm wondering where I will encounter the differences here (I'm guessing that dark light/evening photos are better with the fixed f/4 aperture?) and if that's a major driver to consider?

 

The "stock" lens my XT came with is a f/3.5-5.6 aperture. Therefore, aside from the zoom, I'm assuming that image quality (amt of light taken into the image, sharpness) should remain similar?

 

Specifically for a safari, will the 70-300 IS zoom lens allow me to good pictures at sunset/evening time?

 

Thanks again everyone! Cant thank you enough.

 

Anil

I personally have the 70-300mm IS, and i've gotten many good results from it, though also many bad. The situation i usually shoot in is that of the bronx zoo, and lighting conditions there vary greatly from great to horrible, and the quality of my pictures reflects that. In anything other than bright yet difused light, i tend to not get many very good pictures. The IS works beautifully and it's very interesting to watch the picture in the viewfinder go from jerky to smooth once it turns on. I'm was sort of thinking about buying the 70-200 f4 and returning this one to the store, but now that i think about it, the 1 stop will not make anywhere near as much difference as the 3 stops of IS, and unless the animal is moving very quickly, it should be ok.

 

I have the 20d, so i would have the same crop factor as you. If i had the money though, i'd absolutely spring for the 70-200 2.8 IS, even over the 100-400, though that may only work for my situation, the 100-400 may be better for you.

 

One issue i've found with the 70-300 is that the autofocus tends to hunt a decent amount when light is less than optimal, of course even more so when you have at 300mm (as it's stopped down to 5.6).

 

Image quality between the two i cannot comment on since i've only had the 70-300, but as for the lens i do have i can say that, when the shutter speed is right, this lens can be more than satisfactorily sharp. I'm thinking of renting the 70-200 to check it out, compare the two, but for right now my recommendation would be the 70-300. If you have time to rent them both and compare, or try out friends copies, that might work too.

 

good luck with your purchase

 

Noah K

Hi Anil. I too had the same dilemma when I wanted to expand my lens kit :) Regarding optical quality of L versus non-L lenses, I have personally seen 'real world' test shot comparisons of these two particular lenses plus shot a number of frames using both lenses. There really is a marked difference in image quality, especially on cropped images. If, however, you don't plan to make super-size prints, the 70-300 is probably more than sufficient. However, the 70-200 f/4L glass is certainly superior optically.

<p>Someone made a valid point earlier about L lenses being more conspicuous and drawing the 'wrong' kind of attention. What you must then ask yourself is, where else aside from South Africa would you be shooting? Anywhere particularly risky? Food for thought, I guess. For a game drive, you probably need all the reach you can get.

<p>You also say you like outdoor shots, including people and architecture. You might want to consider a wide angle prime lens for those. (Prime means fixed focal length, not a zoom)

<p>A lot of your decision is probably going to be decided by your budget of course! Just remember that the tool is only as good as its user.

i would just like to comment that although i have created sharp pictures using my 70-300 IS, the majority of my pictures lack the sharpness i desire... perhaps the 70-200 f4 would be better with sharpness, i don't know.