Which 300mm zoom for outing ?

[istvan_sandor]

I have a few L lenses including the 70-700/2.8 L which is my longest

lens. I plan to buy a 300mm zoom (with a shorter end between 70 and

100mm)for outing/hiking where size and weight are important. I have

the following options on my list: Canon 75-300/4,5-5,6, Canon 100-

300/4,5-5,6 USM, Canon 100-300/5.6L, Canon 100-300/5.6 non L, Tamron

70-300 LD Macro.

I never used any of these lenses therefore, it would be very helpful

for me if you could share your experience with me re. these lenses

and/or give me advise.

Of course, I'm prepared for some compromise on the image quality

compared to the 70-200L but would still go for the maximum optical

quality.

[damian_tinsley]

Where can I get a 70-700mm L? Sounds like the answer to a lot of lens queries ;-)

[istvan_sandor]

it should say 70-200/2.8, of course..

[jim_j2]

I have the EF 75-300, 4-5.6 IS USM that I have been very happy with. Although not an L lense, its size and weight and length make it very handy for a general carry around lens. I would recommend the IS for your hiking to accomodate hand held shots in the 300mm length. This lens is fairly fast to focus. I can only dream of an L series lens, so I can not compare. I use an Elan 7e and have this 75-300 the EF 28-105, 3.5-4.5 II USM and the EF 50, 1.8 - I notice very negible differences in the focusing speeds. I rarely exceed any film over ASA 100 and have had excellent hand held results at 300mm with 1/90th shutter speeds.

Hope this helps.

[lotsawa]

Why not just add a 1.4 TC to the 70-200/2.8L?

[istvan_sandor]

Thanks everybody for the answers. Maybe I was not clear enough with my question.

I am looking for a long&light lens which I carry with me when I do not want the weight of the 70-200.

[Greg M]

Why not a 70-200f4L + 1.4II? That combination would be better than any of the choices you mention, lighte than your 70-200 /2.8, and would actually be sharp at the long end, which none of those are.

[Greg M]

I meant to say sharp wide open (f5.6) at the long end, which none of those consumer lenses are- you have to stop down at least 1-2 stops to get good images with any of the comsumer lenses. If you're looking for a zoom that goes to 300mm, you might as well get one thats good out there.

[steve_dunn2]

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300">http://www.photo.net/nature/x-300</a> covers many of these options.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

Michael Reichmann's articles on his Bangla Desh trip may be worth reading, he took the 70-300 DO/IS lens, see www.luminous-landscape.com. He both describes the items he took and the items he will take next time.

[jim_mueller2]

What camera body are you using. If it's a DSLR like the 20D then I would not worry about any of the above zooms not being sharp enough. With the 1.6X cropping factor, most/all of the edge softness will be cropped out any way. If you're using a DSLR with a 1.6X cropping factor, than I'd go for the 75-300 IS.

[jon_stelly]

I've got the Canon 75-300 USM without IS. I used it on a 300D and I have to say I'm not at all impressed with the lens. I don't know if I got a bad element somewhere or what, but wide open the lens is almost unusable. Stopped down to f9+ it gets a bit better, but then you're talking about problems with holding it steady at a slower shutter speed. Maybe I should have gone for the IS version, but it might as well be an f8 minimum aperture lens. If that's not a problem for you then it certainly meets the requirement to be lighter than the 70-200.

 

I've finally broke down and ordered the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 to replace it. I'm sure that's not an option for you since it's heavier than the 70-200. I only mention it because spending that much on a lens is a big deal for me but I'm sure it'll be worth it to be able to get rid of this 75-300.

[dogbert]

I have the Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 non IS. For the money, IMO it is good value, but don't expect miracles. I think it is reasonably sharp and contrasty in the 75-200 range even wide open (clearly better than Canon's kit zooms) and drops of after that. Stopping down improves it slightly in the 200-300 range, but at low ISO handholdability becomes a problem in mid to low light.

 

If your not short of cash the 100-300 f4.5-5.6 is said to be very fast focussing and has a non-rotating front element. Some report a slight improvement in optics over Canon's 75-300s.

[mark u]

The sharpest choice among the lenses you list is the 100-300 f/5.6L, but it's slower at the wide end, and suffers from pincushion distortion that may be too visible depending on what you shoot. Probably the best option in the same price range as your list is the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II. If you're prepared to up the budget, then the 70-300 DO IS lens is compact but a bit heavier, but you'd get better results with the 70-200 f/4 L and 1.4xTC, provided you can live without IS.

[beeman458]

"Maybe I was not clear enough with my question. I am looking for a long&light lens which I carry with me when I do not want the weight of the 70-200."

 

You've limited yourself, in your requirments, to one lense; Canon's 75-300mm IS. I'm gonna go out on a limb with my next, no other lense will fit the requirements.

 

If you're gonna be using the lense just to get snaps, you'll be fine. If I were going hiking and was limited, for all the normal hiking reasons, I'd take a decent monopod/ballhead combo, a Tamron 24-135mm macro and a Canon 75-300mm IS.

 

What you're gonna be using the images for is really, really important here.

[istvan_sandor]

Thnak you so much everybody for taking the time to send me info. Please keep it coming....

[beeman458]

I might add the 70-300 DO IS USM but it's a bunch more money. And there's always the 28-300 IS USM but that's even more money.

 

So unless you have a really, really fat wallet, the first two that I mentioned are excellent choices for snaps and the occational enlargement.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

All the 75-300 models have the same optical performance (IS or no IS) and are not very good.

<P>Especially when you can get the very nice

<a href="http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_2.html">canon 100-300 usm</a>

or

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/argylemonkey/lens_comp">sigma 70-300 Apo macro super II</a>

for not much more money.

 

<P>Check out those linked comparison shots above-they'll answer alot of questions

[tommyinca]

If you don't mind the price, go for the 70-300mm DO. Compact size, reasonable lightness, great IS and can yield workable result. That and the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is my outing pair.

[beeman458]

I have a copy of Canon's 75-300mm IS and it's a much better lense then some here are willing to admit. It's contrasty, has good color and a nice bokeh with a crunchy IS ta-boot. But no, it's doesn't have the image smoothness of an "L" lense.

 

The above being said, the 100-300mm is a very slow lense, yet it has a very even all the way across the MTF chart, chart. The 100-300mm lense also comes with it's very own USM motor and is a bunch cheaper then the 75-300mm IS version and is about a half pound lighter.

 

Let's see for IS we have a hundred and fifty bucks or so more or I can save weight, money, still have decent image quality but no IS.

 

Hmmmmmm:) Choices, choices, choices:)

 

We still need to know what you're gonna use the pics for. Are they just gonna be saved to a HDD and forgotten? Are the CF cards gonna be taken to a Costco Kiosk for quicky 4"x6" printing, stuck in a memory album and forgotten or are you going to do a way cool, travelogue coffee tablebook giving National Geographic a run for their money?