Good telephoto zoom for the Canon 50D

<p>Hi all,<br>

I just purchased a Canon 50D as an upgrade to my Canon Digital Rebel 300D. I am also looking to upgrade my telephoto lens as I currently have the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III ($199.99). I'm looking at the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ($649.99) which feels about in the price range that I am looking for unless it is a poor quality lens or I am going to get substantially more for spending a couple hundred dollars more. Please let me know your thoughts on this or comparable lenses.<br>

The other lenses I have are:<br>

Tamron SP Di 90mm f/2.8<br>

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5<br>

and I just purchased the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM<br>

Thanks for your thoughts.<br>

- Chris</p>

<p>the $650 would be much better spent on the 70-200mm f/4 L. You can get it used for even cheaper, around $500. Better build quality, optics, and faster AF, which is indispensible. The AF on the 70-300mm can take days. Also, I wouldn't hesitate to say that a crop on the 70-200mm would look better than a full image from the 70-300mm if you're worried about the loss of focal length. Resale value of L lenses is better too. All around the 70-200mm is a better choice than the 70-300mm and it fits the budget.</p>

<p>If you can stretch the budget, the 70-200mm f/2.8 L version can be bought used for just under $1000. Worth it if you can afford it. If not, the f/4 is incredible, its what I have and I love it. Its also smaller and lighter than the other 3 versions.</p>

<p>I don't really consider a 70-200 a telephoto. I shoot it all the time inside on my full frame. But I would get a 100-400 IS L. I have that one too and love it. I use it for all of my aviation photos. The extra money spent on the IS between the 2 lens you mentioned is not worth it IMO. Same focal length just add IS would not be step up at all. I would sell the 75-300 that you have and get the 100-400 IS L, now that is an upgrade all the way around. Good luck v/r Buffdr</p>

<p>My fav telezoom is the EF 70-200 4L IS USM: top optical and build quality with IS. If that's too expensive, the 70-200 4L USM is almost the same minus IS and the o-ring thingie.</p>

<p>normally, i wouldn't have anything to say. but, imo, if you get the 70-300 you won't like the IQ as compared to the 10-22 and 17-55. it's not a match. if your other lenses were more consumer-grade you wouldn't notice. but, 10-22 and (especially) 17-55 (and, i'll bet, the tamron) produce deep saturation with excellent dynamic range. 70-300 does not. by comparison it's 'muddy' or 'murky'... dull.<br>

also, you have a nice camera. if you had some kind of rebel a consumer tele zoom might be more in line. rebels are nice but the 50d is better. putting a 70-300 on the 50d will diminish some of its potential.<br>

at the budget level you're talking about, recommend 70-200 f4 L (non-IS), or the 200 f 2.8. these optics match the IQ of the other lenses you mention. deep, bright color -- sharp in the corners wide open</p>

<p>Another vote for the 70-200 f/4L. Significantly better build and IQ for about the same price as the 70-300. </p>

<p>Buffdr,<br>

You say the 70-200mm isn't telephoto and to get the 100-400mm, but you use a full frame camera. With the crop factor of the 50D, the 70-200mm would act like a 112-320mm, which I would consider telephoto. Also, the 100-400mm is quite slow with a variable aperture of f/4-5.6. Yes the 70-200mm comes in a f/4, but its constant and a stop faster than the f/5.6 on the long end.</p>

<p>The Canon 70-300mm IS you suggest is an excellent lens. I had the Canon 70-200mm "L" for a number of years and while sharp and well built I could never get the best out of it without a tripod. I bought the (new) Canon 70-300 IS and kept both for about a year until I sold the 70-200mm. The reasons I prefer the 70-300mm is that the IQ from both is indistinguishable, I tried every test available and I could never tell which lens was being used in side by side shots (the 70-300mm IS has a UD element) and while the 70-200mm wins on build, focus speed, and full time manual, the 70-300mm IS wins on an extra 100mm reach and the IS. Where I needed a minimal 1/250th sec with the 70-200mm at the long end to even approach what it is capable of, the 70-300mm IS can easily do the same at 1/60th using IS. For me the result is that I get literal 100% keepers with the 70-300mm IS vs the continual disappointment with the 70-200mm "L" handheld (I even bought the tripod collar for the 70-200mm which is another $150 from Canon). So for me the IS is invaluable and I would recommend it, and the 300mm is significantly longer and useful than 200mm. Here is a link that fairly reflects what I see in the 70-300mm IS (you can see the 70-200mm "L" on this site too)<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review</a></p>

<p>AF speed is a big thing to consider; the extra 100mm and IS will never make up for the shots you never get b/c the lens took too long to focus and you missed the shot.</p>

<p>Thanks Nathan. I'm not a fan of tripods, so what is your thought on the impact of losing the IS going with the lens you recommend? (I intended as a response for your first post, but this never sent. Some of this has been answered).</p>

<p>IMO, the 55-250mm IS is almost as good as the 70-300mm IS for a lot less money, and with a more useful focal length on a 1.6x format DSLR. YMMV.</p>

<p>Absolutely the 70-200/4 L for a zoom, or a 200/2.8 L. A used 1.4x for either lens will also provide impressive results. </p>

<p>The image quality of the 300mm zoom with IS is not much better than your current zoom. Yes that is a lot to pay for the IS function! In full sun the 70-200/4 L can be easily handheld at ISO 100 and 1/1000. You can lose two stops of light and still shoot at a handholdable speed of 1/180 to 1/250. Your 50D can easily go to ISO 800 to 1600 when light gets really low. Also remember that IS is only a contributing factor for still subjects in extremely low light.</p>

<p>The fact that you have a capable 90/2.8 opens the door for the exceptional 200/2.8 L prime lens. Add a 1.4x or even 2x and you get a very good longer telephoto. </p>

<p>I certainly agree with what Peter Rowe says. The 70-300 IS is an excellent lens. After I had it for a year (often renting the 2.8 versions of the 70-200 for low light situations), I sold it to get the 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) as I needed the 2.8. The IQ of the lenses are nearly the same. You cannot go wrong with the 70-300 IS - and you might miss the 200-300mm but getting the 70-200 f/4 and you might not like the stares you get with the white lens and you can't get into certain venues with the white lens, etc., etc.</p>

<p>I had both of these lenses and kept the 70-200. AF performance is far superior as is build quality and optical performance. The 70-300 is a fine lens but it is not in the same league as the 70-200 in image quality. IS is the only advantage that it has.</p>

<p>The f/4 IS and f/2.8 non IS are similar in price and the f/2.8 IS the most expensive although the f/2.8 IS II just released so the price of the older version should go down. Some people swear by IS and have to have it. I would personally rather have the extra stop and no IS. I'd rather have the 2.8 non IS than the f/4 IS, but thats me. It depends what you shoot too. The IS will keep the camera steady allowing for slower shutter speeds, but the f/2.8 will blur the background better and isolate the subject. If you have never used IS on a telephoto then you don't know what you're missing, which can be good. Then you can get by with a non IS lens and save money. To tell the truth, I sold my 75-300mm IS lens and I haven't missed the IS yet. I shoot mostly action at longer focal lengths anyways and the IS won't stop action, only a fast shutter will, so the faster lens would be more beneficial, however the IS does make it easier to keep the subject in the frame. I think you just have to think about what you'd rather have and maybe play around with each model and see what works best for you and your budget. Just don't be afraid of being locked into a lens you don't like. The L lenses retain their value and you can sell and rebuy later if need with little or no loss, heck sometimes you make money.</p>

<p>Not to compare this to those really nice lenses being talked about, but there is also the newer Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG OS for $400 that can also be used on full frames. It's good for about 2 to 3 stops, not the 4 it advertises at. I bought it and I got some really sharp shots at 300mm. Unfortunately I had to send my new T1i in for repair because non of my lenses including this lens were getting a sharp focus very often (without manual or live view), but they all worked great on my XTi.<br>

Anyway, thought I would mention it.</p>

<p>Nathan unless you need the extra stop get the 70-200 F4 IS it is a great lens. I have both the 70-200 F2.8 and 70-200 F4 IS and they are both great lenses. the reason I have both is that I need the F2.8 lens for sports and in these circumstances IS is not needed. The F4 les is for travelling around with - it is half the weight of the F2.8 lens but has the same IQ. For portraits and sports / action (especially indoor) the F2.8 lens is better but it is not a lens you throw in the bag just in case (hence the fact I have the F4 IS). As others have said the IQ of either of these lenses is much better than consumer lenses and (in my opinion) better than the 100-400.</p>

<p>I agree completely Philip. You must consider what you will be shooting the most before deciding. 2.8 for sports/wildlife, f/4 IS for everything else. But you have both, if you could only choose one which would it be? I think I'd choose the f/2.8 non IS, but thats me.</p>

<p>I would go for the Canon 100-400, the others are no better than the cheap 55-250IS</p>

<p> </p>

If you don't have one yet and you've just upgraded to a body that can

use the quality, to me this is a no brainer!

There's no way I would go for a 75 to 300 lens or any other lens for

that matter, until you've got yourself a 70-210 L lens. Around 5 or 600

$$, get a second hand one. It really doesn't matter wheter its IS or

F2.8 or whatever; that is peripheral and depends how deep your

pocket is! Obviously F2.8 IS sounds good, bue remember the huge (C

50%) weight penalty!

All serious Canon photographers should have some incarnation of

Canon's "white" 70-210 L glass on their photographic journey. You'll

never regret it....

You will if you never get one!

..... and another thing; STOP buying EFs lenses AND non Canon lenses. Believe me, you'll regret it ultimately if and when

you start using Canons WITHOUT a crop factor!

That comment is a bit tongue in cheek, but in my view, has some truth in it!

Steve

<blockquote>

<p>"the others are no better than the cheap 55-250IS"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Seriously, That is completely false, but I guess that explains why all the Sports Illustrated photographers have the black plastic 55-250mm lens mounted on their 1D MkIII's on the sidelines of NFL games.</p>

<p>Nathan the 70-200 F2.8 can do all the 70-200 f4 IS can do plus indoor sports and a shallow DOF for portraits so if I could only have one it would be the F2.8 lens. The F4 though is great for acring around being half the weight.</p>

<p>Chris,<br>

I have the 70-200mm f4L, had a 100-300mm 4.5-5.6 before this, the L zoom is far and away better, light weight. You won't regret it if you get one. The 75-300Is is also fairly good I believe from reports. But it comes down to what you shoot, and where. If you need the reach, then the longer zoom might do. But with the L zoom the bokeh, and the colours rock. You can always get a 1.4 extender like I did. My 2 cents</p>

<p>How often do you shoot your 75-300 maxed out at 300mm and perhaps wish for a bit more reach?<br /> 100-400L IS.<br /> Does your kit have to be easily portable?<br /> 70-200/4.<br /> Are you often in lowish light but your subjects don't run away?<br /> 70-200/4 IS.<br /> Sports, action?<br /> 70-200/2.8.<br /> Always at the tele end, not really a need for a general purpose range from 70-100mm?<br /> 200/2.8L $750<br /> 300/4L IS, $1400 Both superb but you have to be very certain about your needs before buying a prime.<br /> How big files do you really need?<br /> 15Mp + 70-200L goes far with some cropping. You can cut away 75%(!) and still print fine 8x10. Quality is rather different than with 75-300 III. I'm not terribly picky but cheap zooms at 300mm are... umm... just bad. They may actually have pretty decent resolution but low contrast and aberrations make the results painful to watch compared to quality teles and instead of cropping you feel more like downsizing 50% to make it look ok.</p>

<p>Go to a store and handle the lenses if you haven't already. There are substantial differences, lugging around 70-200/2.8 or 100-400L when you don't need them is not fun at all. We're talking about very different weight and size than your previous lenses and you really need to try them yourself before buying.<br /> And do try the 70-300 IS too. It's pretty small and "normal" looking, image quality isn't half bad and IS works. (Older 75-300 IS is optically different and more shabby.) But if "L-look" is not a problem then any 70-200L variant will beat your 75-300 III silly even though they're 100mm less.</p>