Zoom Lens for my 10D?

[denny_kyser]

Looking for a zoom lens to replace my 70-200 4.0 L, The 200 was

leaving me too short too often so sold it. I am NOT going to invest

into a L lens at this time but need to replace this lens for now.

($400.00 or LESS) I will be using the lens for sports and wildlife

and will want decent size enlargements up to 8X10 shooting RAW

 

Any sugestions / experiences will be greatly appreciated.

Denny

[denisbergeron]

EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM

<a href="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7339">http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7339</a>

 

I find it nice. You got 100mm more... not a big think.

[eoghan]

Had you considered the 1.4x?

 

Not much is going to compare to what you had, so why not just get a cheap 75-300?

-e

[catchlight]

<i> . . . "($400.00 or LESS) I will be using the lens for sports and wildlife and will want decent size enlargements up to 8X10 shooting RAW."</i>

<p>Denny, that's a tall order for $400. <p>

As suggested above, adding a 1.4X or 2X TC to the Canon zoom would have been a solution, albeit over your budgeted amount.<p>

 

For me, it would be tough to go back to a soft consumer tele-zoom after using an L zoom, and most wildlife photographers say that 300mm isn't long enough. The Canon 200mm f2.8L prime, combined with a 2X TC, would give you more length for wildlife, f2.8 speed for sports, and very good image quality. <p>That lens and TC combination would cost $625 to $700 mint/used on this board or Fred Miranda, depending on whether you get a Canon or third-party TC.

[digitmstr]

ANY 300mm consumer zoom in that price range will be a lesser "lens" than the one you sold + the 1.4 TC.

[Greg M]

Denny,

 

The 1.4 tele converter would have been less than $300 & got you almost to 300mm & would have been a MUCH sharper lens than the consumer options, be it a Canon or third-party lens. Nothing at $400 or less will get you as good a quality as what you had plus the TC....

[jim_larson1]

For $400 you can buy any of the 70-300 zooms, all of which will be inferior at 300mm than a cropped and blown up image from the 70=200/4L taken at 200mm.

[denny_kyser]

Even the 75-300 IS lens, is this also a poor choice?

[digitmstr]

The 75-300 IS is not "bad" if you like/need IS and because it does have IS it will allow shots otherwise impossible in lenses without IS (provided the subject is STILL).

[ian_hobday]

I have the 70-200 2.8L and often use it with the Canon 1.4x TC. On the D60 this gives the same FOV as a 448mm lens with very little loss of quality. Of course the DOF is still that of a 280mm F4 lens, but I can live with that most of the time.<br>

<br>

Sorry to say, but after working with your 70-200 4L you will not be satisfied with any of the consumer level 75-300 or similar lenses.<br>

<br>

I too suggest you look for a good deal on a used 70-200 4L and a Canon 1.4x TC. The 1.4x TC will cost about $400 by itself (unless you can find a good deal on a used one), and I guess it will cost you a bit more to re-buy the 70-200 than you got selling it... :(<br>

<br>

Another option might be to get a used 300 4L. No zoom, but they can be found for around $450 to $500 US (used non-IS of course) here in Japan. I would imagine the price is similiar in the US.<br>

<br>

Good luck with your search, hope you can find something that you are happy with.<br>

<br>

Ian<br>

--<br>

Ian Hobday<br>

Osaka, Japan<br>

<a href="http://hobday.net/photos" target="_blank">http://hobday.net/photos</a> (Opens in a new window.)

[denny_kyser]

Thanks and guess I should have thought more about it before selling my 70-200, although I got a very good amount for it since it was only a few months old, I can purchase another one with out a lot of loss, I had my doubts with the f/4 and the 1.4 making it very slow for low light wildlife. I was not real impressed in the 400 ISO pictures I was getting. I had no idea there would be that much picture quality loss in the $400.00 lenses.

[larry_biggs]

For what it's worth, I shot a bunch of cyclists last weekend using my older 75-300 non-IS. Aside from the first ten shots or so, the rest are all shot with the 75-300.

You can get an example of what the consumer grade stuff looks like here:

<br>

<A HREF="http://www.larrybiggs.us/gallery/fitt"><IMG SRC="http://www.larrybiggs.us/albums/fitt/IMG_4177.sized.jpg" BORDER="0" ALT="75-300 Sample"></A> <br>

Click on the photo for more pictures, also the focus for this shot was midway back in the group. If you want a full sized version to see the "less than perfectness", let me know.

[larry_biggs]

I should add that after viewing my photos in full size, I finally broke down and ordered the 70-200/F4L and the 1.4x, which should arrive in the next day or so..

[rodolfo_negrete]

well seem like you sold a gem.if you were not happy wiht them there are not going to be zooms that are near as good as the 70-200 for less than $400.00 dls

[denny_kyser]

I was just wanting more reach, I have already decided its another 70-200. The person I sold it to has some focusing problems with her 10D so I may get a chance to refund her money, if not will have to kick in an additional $45.00 plus a filter and order a new one. I should have done my homework before selling it.