Does the amatuer really need a professional zoom lense?

[chris_reed]

Thanks to all who have recommended the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM and EF

70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. But really, does a guy who will be

printing at 8x10 and below really need such a lense? Can I get by

with the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM or even EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6

USM? Homesty requested.

[william_castleman]

....if you are printing 8x10's and have a good eye and good technique, the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM or even EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM will produce much better 8x10's than someone will with limited perspective and poor technique.

Consumer zooms are a great way to start until you feel you need better quality.

But then..... you already knew this. Right?

[awindsor]

Well my home is a sty so I hope it is appreciated.

 

Bob Atkin's is a defender of the 75-300 lenses and with justification. Check out

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/x-300.html

 

If you are seriously budget limited then I have an old 75-300 II non-IS that I am willing to sell cheaply. The 75-300 IS lens will be much better for shots without a tripod (though they are optically equal) but probably still cariies a premium. The new 70-300 is much better optically. Unfortunately as Canon's basic consumer telephoto zoom has increased in ability it has increased considerably in price.

 

Even a cheap 2 zoom combination is better than a hyperzoom.

[chris_reed]

I do, I am just unsure how mediocre the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM or EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM are relative EF 70-200mm f/4L USM and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Any thoughts?

[awindsor]

Photozone.de has numbers so you can quantify precisely how bad the 75-300 IS is relative to the 70-300 IS. However this is fairly useless for deciding whether it is good enough.

[william_castleman]

I ran tests with the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM when I was testing the EF 70-300 DO IS. You can look at the performance graphs or the taxidermy specimens in the tests here:

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_300/index.htm

 

Overall, the EF 75-300mm performed reasonably well against some expensive glass.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I'm an amateur photographer and never will be more than that. Among the reasons is that I lack talent.</p>

 

<p>That said, my 300/4L IS USM yields better pictures, even at 8x10" or below, than I got from the long end of the 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM which it replaced. The 100-300 can be made a fair bit better by stopping it down 2-3 stops, but a 300mm f/11 or f/16 lens is awfully slow.</p>

 

<p>Do you <em>need</em> a pro lens? No, not likely. If a pro lens is going to stretch you beyond your budget, then don't worry about whether equipment snobs like me said you should get it; get something that fits within your budget and leaves you enough money to put food on the table and pay the mortgage. But get the best lens you <em>can</em> afford, because you do generally get what you pay for.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

It depends on what you want to shoot with it....

 

soooo.....I don't personally have any experience with either of those lenses directly but I do own a a 75-300mm f/4-5.6....probably the first...there are no roman numerals but there is the little flower thingie indicating macro on it.

 

from 75-135 it's pretty damn good......135 to 200 ain't too shabby either......above that it basically sucks.....well, not sucks, but I can definitely see the difference.

 

...and of course it's 4 and 4.5 only up to 135mm....so as a lower light lens it loses any usability very quickly.

 

if the III improves on any of that......I don't know.

 

But the one I bought was used, and dirt cheap, so I'm happy. But for any serious low light work I use my 100mm f/2, and get closer.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

I can't believe the 75-300 IS lens is being talked about as though it's optically special compared to the non IS version.They are the same lens for goodness sakes....It's just that the IS version has the VERY expensive image stabilization added.

<P>No Chris you don't need the expensive lenses. Even when printing to A4 size or less,the expensive lenses will look better,but not to any great extent.

<BR>The two best consumer telezoom lenses are the sigma 70-300Apo DG or canon 100-300usm,allthough cheaper ones such as the 75-300 or tamron 70-300 LD are also usable.

<P>Only consider the 28-200 (or similar) lenses if it is particularly important to use only one lens.

<P>To put this all into perspective-

<BR>Most (except very fussy users and pro's) are happy with the sigma 70-300apo or canon 100-300usm

<BR>Most owners are happy with the 75-300 but say the long end is abit too soft

<BR>Owners of the tamron 70-300LD are quite happy with the sharpness but don't like the slow focus speed

<BR> And most hyperzoom owners either love/tollerate these type lenses because of their flexablity,or quickly move onto better lenses

[timcorridan]

yes, you absolutely need a pro level zoom, and great technique, to take a wide variety of great photos for your favorite hobby. otherwise, stick to primes, for even better images.

[grant g]

Nope. No amatuer *needs* expensive glass.

 

When I first started shooting, I feel I captured some pretty stunning images with just the 18-55 kit lens and a Sigma 100-300.

 

But most of those images were taken outdoors in good lighting...

 

I found the limits of those lenses and kept upgrading.

 

Buy what you can afford. Take pictures. Be happy. : )

[John Crowe]

The differences are huge for those with 25 years experience. Do you need pro lenses...no. To try to put the differences in perspective it would be nice to know if you are shooting digital or film and what lenses you already have.

[steven_wartofsky1]

My answer is absolutely not. The more expensive lenses give you options at the extremes of photography, where you want to be able to shoot in available light; or with very selective focus and narrow depth of field; or for significant enlargement for print.

 

A lens manufactured and produced at mass-market prices will make you work harder to get good images -- which in some cases could be a very good thing! You'd have to learn about stuff like tripods, and proper use of electronic flash, or even, dare I suggest it, studio lighting, and working with difficult exposure and focus situations without a lot of automated help.... all of these things, if you're not under commercial pressure, could actually be good for you in learning more about photography.

 

Let your skills guide your expenditure; buy the tools appropriate for what you can do, and upgrade only when you've really exhausted what you have.

[awindsor]

<blockqoute><I>

I can't believe the 75-300 IS lens is being talked about as though it's optically special compared to the non IS version.They are the same lens for goodness sakes....It's just that the IS version has the VERY expensive image stabilization added.</I>

</blockquote>

 

I can't believe it either, Ron. Where did it happen ? As far as I can tell I am the only person to compare the two and I stated that they are optically equal. <P>

 

In PhotoZone testing the Sigma 100-300 APO delivered superior centre performance to the 75-300 IS but considerably worse edge performance. The Sigma's edges were described as "dismal". <P>

 

The Canon 100-300/4.5-5.6 definitely has handling advantages over the 75-300 but whether or not it has any optical advantages is not clear. Bob Atkins tested them with Kodachrome 25 at 300mm and felt they were the same. <P>

[patrickconnolly]

I may not be able to quantify it, but there is a discernible difference in quality between the 75-300 and the L glass. I used the 75-300 for a couple of years - mostly sports photos of my kids and their teams. I upgraded to the 70-200 2.8L and 100-400 L lenses this summer and have not regretted it for a moment. Gone is the purple or green fringing that I found so annoying.

 

But having said that - I have 12 20x24 prints taken with the 75-300 that are hanging in the local soccer club's office, with 3 more on order. Museum quality - nope - but just fine for the audience.

 

Bottom line, it depends on how you will use the lenses. I'd suggest the 75-300 - use it until you have a list of complaints about your images. If you dont have a lot of things to complain about, then that lens is right for you. If you have a lengthy list, then it is time to upgrade.

 

Good luck - let us know your decision!

[jim_larson1]

Honestly. . . I am not sure even PROS need "L" glass.

 

Will makes an excellent point that a Lens is a tool. In the hands of an artist, a crappy zoom will beat a pro zoom in the hands of a buffoon.

 

Will: Off topic: Your website is excellent! I quote (and link) to it often!

 

I have a 75-300 and a 70-200/4L. I would rank myself as a buffoon. :) But at the long end. . . I find that crops from my 70-200/4L are superior to straight images from my 75-300 at 300mm.

 

Photography to some is a trade. Lens choices are professional judgement. Photography to others is a hobby. To hobbiests. . .lens choices are an economic / emotional decision.

 

I have "L" lenses because I *choose* to have them, not because I *need* them.

[nam_nguyen]

The difference is only about $200, and in the long run it also gives you the ability to use the 1.4x or the 2x. I'd say go for L glass. It's something you don't have to look back at least for a long while.

[edgreene]

When I switched from Pentax to Canon EOS, the last thing I worried about was how much it cost: "L" glass costs.<br>That said, the money I spent back in 1992 is money well spent in 2005 and beyond. The differences between "L" glass and consumer grade are telling. Even if you don't want to do huge enlargements, what "L" glass does for 8 x 10s is simply astonishing. <p>While some would equivocate, making invidious comparisons between "L" glass and consumer grade, and that usually in favor "<i>It's almost good enough and besides, it's cheaper</i>" school of thought, my ancient "L" glass still kicks butt, especially consumer lens butt.<p>Besides, the 70-200 f/4 "L" is thought of as the most astonishing value for dollar "Pro" lens Canon ever made-bar none.<br> And with the exception of the faster aperture (f/2.8), it (70-200 f/4.0 ﾓLﾔ) has <b>outperformed</b> the vaunted 70-200 f/2.8 "L" lens.<p>Thirty years from now, when those consumer lenses have long since disintegrated into so much recycling material, your 70-200 f/4.0 will be like the Everready Bunny: keep going and goingﾅ

[damian_tinsley]

Primarily I am worried that my wife will read this thread and begin to question any equipment 'needs' that I have mentioned in passing...

 

Honesty can get some of us into a LOT of trouble sometimes... ;-)

[mark u]

Use whatever lens you are happy with. Canon and third parties make a wide range of offerings at a variety of price and quality points. I wouldn't be happy with lower end lenses personally, but partly on account of print size or subject matter, you may be content with them. What does make sense is to get the best value at a given budget point - and often means looking at third party alternatives.

[les]

From the testing performed by Mr Castleman it appears that the 70-200/2.8 IS can't compete neither with the 75-300 nor with the 70-300.

Something does not compute here: am I reading the test charts properly ?

[john_seymour]

For an amateur (like me) it's also the 'joy' of owning and using the expensive stuff. It's better built, handles better, etc. Does it make (small) pictures better, all other things being equal? Probably. A little. But you're into the law of dimishing returns for your money. Like buying expensive hi-fi (cheaper stuff sounds ALMOST as good to many people), or expensive cars (they look nicer and go faster/better engineered, but the cheep ones still get you from a to b).

 

So a lot depends on your budget - and character! A low cost lens will I think give you much better value, but not the ultimate in performance (however you measure it). And remember the best photos ever taken were not neccessarily shot using the most expensive equipment available today.

 

You might

 

- Buy cheap and be happy with the value and how much you didn't need to spend

- Buy cheap and never ben happy with the quality, and wind up with the expense of upgrading later

- Buy expensive and never feel you could do justice to what you'd spent, forever whishing you'd spend less

- Buy expensive and be upset it's still not perfect (just less imperfect than the cheap lenses!)

- Etc etc etc

 

J

 

J

[vincent_j_m]

No you don't need a pro L lens. Buy a cheap but decent lens like the 100-300 USM or even the 75-300's. They are not crap as most people would have you believe. I've seen working pros use the 75-300 and 100-300 for publication quality photographs. After going through the ruinously expensive L route I went back to basics and now use a cheap sigma 70-300 APO DG (note the DG : latest version of this lens). It is optically very very good, better than the canon 75-300's, the build quality is far superior to the canons, and gives you 1:2 macro. The only downside is the focus speed. Not bad for a $160 lens. Terrific value for money. Look at alternatives, and don't be stuck with canon. Look at tamron, sigma etc.

[yakim_peled1]

There's a thing called "The L bug". Once you're infected, there's no cure for that. You're wallet gets lighter, your bag gets heavier, your wife gets angrier but you just keep on going, ignoring all.

 

So, the answer to your question is 'Yes'. Once you got the bug, you really need this white stuff.

 

BTW, there's also another version "The prime bug". It's similar to the former but the difference is that you crave for the black stuff as well as the white stuff and your feet gets stronger.

 

Those bugs alter your behavior and your thoughts. I think that these lenses should be tagged with "Beware! Addictive substance!" label on them.

 

Take the advice of an addict and stay away from them.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[snakeroot]

I agree, the non-professional photographer does not need a bunch of L Series lenses, the camera, and all the goodies to boot...

 

But I tell you, there's nothing quite like feeling in my grasp the 1DS Mark II with the 70-200 2.8 IS lens attached.... I hope to improve to use their capabilities.