New plane spotting lens

Hi people. Looking to upgrade to a new lens.

I'm an aviation photographer. Currently I use a canon 1200d and 75-300 USM III. I would love the Canon 70-300 L but it's just too

expensive for me as a student. Looking at alternative options I decided on the Canon 70-200 F4 L (non IS) do you think this will do well? I

looked at a lot of my photos and I hardly use 300mm at my local airport. Some of my best shots are around the 100mm mark. Here's 2

examples.

First photo: https://img.planespotters.net/upload/2016/02/28/original/813e6e039b31cbca82bc762fed2e29cb.jpg 75mm (before cropping)

focal length.

Second photo: https://img.planespotters.net/upload/2016/02/29/original/0533d424b9e1983d638fdbc5ba101ebd.jpg 95mm (before

cropping)

<p>I've had the 70-200/4 (non IS) for about 10 years. It's a really excellent lens, very light, small and not difficult to hand hold at all. If you don't shoot at over 200mm, then it's well worth getting. My personal preference is the 100-400</p>

<p>As Peter says, the 70-200 f4 L is a magnificent lens, great image quality and great value. If you do not need / can't afford the extra reach then the 70-200 is arguably your best option. You could add a 1.4X TC at a later date.<br>

If you could stretch to it the IS version would be better specifically for propeller aircraft. A slower shutter speed of maybe about 1/200 th or slower is better for these planes to get the propellor blur but that works against overall sharpness. The IS helps there.</p>

<p>KEH has a couple of used 70-200 f4 L IS for sale for $500.</p>

<p>I have used an EF 70-200mm f/4L IS since 2008 and get sterling results. For planes, you can raise the shutter speed to avoid camera shake. Also, you might by an EF 1.4x TC-II (not III) for those shows where you can't get quite close enough. </p>

Sounds like I'm on the right track then. I was thinking that next time I could afford it I'd get a 1.4x TC. I prefer not to buy

from the US. I'm in New Zealand so shipping costs a bit. I will most likely be buying on eBay Australia as I have people I

know in Australia who come to NZ often enough that could bring it with them. As much as I'd like to reach on a 100-400, it

is actually just too much for my local airport. I need to be able to zoom out further than 100mm. I'll see about the IS

version. Depends how much I get paid after Easter

<p>If you are on a budget and use APS-C cameras you should seriously look at the Canon 55-250mm IS STM lens. 15 millimeters on the low end and 50 extra millimeters on the long end and IS that can be had quite reasonably. I just paid $142 for one including tax and shipping. I have the 70-200mm 4.0 IS and I'd rather carry and use the 55-250mm STM lens with my T5i. I don't feel like I give up much in image quality and the weight saving is very nice. Good luck!</p>

Considering I already own a 75-300 I don't see much point switching to a 55-250. I'd rather pay a bit more and get a 70-

200 L and own it for many years than get a 55-250 and want to upgrade again in a year

Colin. I am now debating wether I should save the extra money and buy the IS version or not. Mainly, I shoot commercial

aircraft. I do often get turboprops where I am. I see Dash 8 Q300s, ATR 72s, and Saab 340s, all of which are prop

aircraft. I do also have just as many Airbus A320s and Boeing 737-800s though. Do you think I need the IS? I have never

really found myself wanting it on my 75-300

<p>I'm not Colin, but I would say that IS is very important on longer lenses like the 70-200, and I wish it was available on some of Canon's shorter lenses. I have the 70-200 f/4 IS and it's a great lens. Highly recommended and here's a review from Photozone as well:</p>

<p>www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/431-canon_70200_4is_5d</p>

<p>Here's an example with the 70-200 f/4 IS.</p><div></div>

<p>Mackenzie, the difference between the 75-300, which is not that good, and the 55-250 IS is sharpness. It offers the best value there is for a budget tele zoom lens. The 70-200L F4 is a step ahead again with sharpness and build but with a restricted zoom range and higher cost. The best are the 70-300L and either of the 100-400Ls, the MkII in a class of it's own.<br>

I think I would establish what zoom range I needed, and think of the future here, lenses should last a long time. Then come up with how much I could pay. See what that matches amongst the 55-250 IS, 70-200 F4 and the longer whites.<br>

Good luck, you get an interesting collection of long distance planes down there. 747s finished?</p>

It's pretty lonely where I am. Never more than 3 aircraft one the ground at once. No 747s operate in NZ anymore and the

767s and B1900Ds are on their way out. The biggest aircraft I see at my airport are A320s with the odd charter 767. 737-

300s were retired in September.

I have looked through my photos and their data and found I actually do not use 300mm that much at all. I can get super

close to the runway where I live so a lot of zoom isn't actually necessary. A 100-400 wouldn't work because I need to be

able to zoom out further than 100mm. The 70-300L is the lens I would absolutely love but it's so much more expensive

<p>Mackenzie, have a look at the Canon 55-250 IS. There are two versions, one with normal AF and one with an STM Focus Motor for video. Scuttlebutt has it that the STM version is sharper. Another lens worth looking at is the 70-300IS. It is sharper than your 75-300mm. The Tamron 70-300 is also said to be pretty good. These are all lenses that cost less than $500, some under $300. <br>

The 70-200L F4 is a step ahead of these regards sharpness and build, it will match the latest offerings and will last a lifetime.<br>

I have used e global mail order from Hong Kong, they seemed good with fast delivery. Alternatively B&H New York ship overseas and I would see if the larger Australian camera stores do also. All these lenses are relatively common, you could look for one second hand.</p>

As you say, the 70-200 F4 will last a lifetime. That's what I want. I don't want to spend money on a 55-250 IS and then

want the 70-200 a year or two down the track. I have looked into the 70-300 IS. A brand new 70-300 IS costs only a little

bit less than a second hand 70-200 F4 L so I think it would be better to spend the little bit extra for more quality

Sorry to restart an old post but last night I finally bought a 70-200 F4. It was shipped yesterday and should arrive in about

a week, I look forward to receiving it. It's second hand, no marks or issues at all. Comes with both caps, hood, and Hoya

filter. Cost me NZ $606