100-300 vs. 70-300 IS vs. 55-250 IS vs. 80-200 (used)

[jeff_higdon]

This is my first post of a question.

 

I have been reasonably happy with my 100-300 - it has taught me alot - and now

that I know a bit of what it takes to get a good photo from a distance away, I am

noticing that no matter what I do or how much light I have, there are certain

situations where my keeper ratio is getting poor. Outdoor sports in the bright

sunlight for example though I sometimes get great shots. So I'd like to replace the

100-300 soon.

 

In addition to the 100-300, I have an Xti, a 50mm 1.8, an 85mm 1.8, a 17-85 IS (as

many of you know...) along with a Canon Rebel Ti and its accompanying 28-90mm

lens. I am selling the Ti and its lens, probably soon.

 

How much improvement will I notice by moving up to the 70-300 IS or moving up

(or is it down or laterally) to the 55-250?

 

Should I consider something else - like a 200mm 2.8?

 

My 100-300 has USM and FTM. But the 70-300 and the 55-250 have IS. And I am

not the steadiest photographer, I suspect.

 

I don't use a tripod all that much and I don't own a monopod. Thinking of getting

one though.

 

I take photos of, well, everything. I don't travel far. A typical use of the 100-300 was

in Williamsburg, VA where I took shots of the colonials dressed in their period

outfits, the British soldiers etc. That was fun. All outdoors in bright sunlight but

often at 200-300 the photos were not all that sharp.

 

I take alot of family photos and, since these by necessity are from afar (they are

not into posing), the 100-300 is used at 200-300 a bunch at those outdoor family

functions.

 

I go to Washington, D.C. alot and take photos of the monuments and people in

front of them etc.

 

I don't get into animal photos too much. I don't hike.

 

I do like to shoot all kinds of athletic events indoors and out.

 

The white L lenses are out for a number of reasons. First, certain venues would be

a problem including major league baseball parks, NFL stadiums. Second, I don't

like the "target" factor. Third,the weight of the white L's would bother me though

this is the least of my problems with them.

 

That being said, I have rented/borrowed from time to time the 70-200 2.8 IS and

the 100-400 IS and will do so again in June for some indoor rectials but that rental

cost is starting to bother me.

 

I shoot college lacrosse games, school plays, indoor and outdoor concerts, indoor

and outdoor dance recitals (alot of those). These last six venues do not prohibit

me from using the white L's.

 

I go to the beach and take photos of my children in the ocean.

 

A used 80-200 2.8 also interests me (except for the weight of course - but I am

willing to consider such a purchase if I can keep the price in the range of 600-650

which is my top budget number).

 

I use the 17-85 alot. I have also rented or borrowed the 17-40, 24-105 and the

aforementioned L zooms. I tried out a Tamron 17-50 briefly in the store. But, I

digress.

 

I know what good photos should look like.

 

I probably prefer to stick with the Canon brand but I have an open mind.

 

What types of shots will I notice significant improvement over the 100-300 by

spending over $500 to get the 70-300 IS? Would spending close to $700 to get a

used Canon 80-200 (non-IS) make sense given my intended uses? Any thoughts

on the new 55-250 IS or the 200 2.8 given my intended uses?

 

I do not print anything bigger than 8x10 BUT, not being a professional, I do crop a

bit more than others might so...

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[albert lui]

There will tons of hardware solutions offered, but why not try a technique solution first? The leading cause of soft images is operator unsteadiness. Therefore, it may useful to make some test images at 300mm with a conservative shutter speed of, say 1/750 or shorter, on your 1.6x camera.

[richard_martin10]

I have the 70-300 IS and love it, also have the 70-200 f4L, it is also a great lens. Here is a shot with the 70-300 just so you can see the quality and that it is usable for action sports. IS is turned off for motorsports events.

[chrisjb]

One thing I don`t do with the 100 300 is shoot at 300 where they are soft, try not to go passed bout 280, I`d suggest try a monopod before buying another lens, the IS will only help with still subjects, as for venue hassles have you looked at the 70 300 DO lens, heard its ok but never used one, someone who has may care to comment.:)

[jeff_higdon]

Wow that photo is fantastic! I trust the car was moving faster than your average NFL wide receiver, so that's good. My only real concern about the 70-300 is that it's as slow a lens as the 100-300. But I guess the IS makes up for it.

 

As to technique, yes I am sure that's an issue too. And stabilizing my camera with my hands etc.maybe is key. But, I guess to cut my question down to something simple, how much better is the 70-300 over the 100-300?

[chrisjb]

BTW the 200 2.8 is one of the nicest primes I know, sharp, fast and light, only you would know the fixed FL suits your style :)

[chrisjb]

I guess you have to work out if the IS and maybe a lil sharpness is worth it, I wondered bout the 70 300 IS but not seen side by side,I would not mind a black 70 200L ocassionally. This shot 20d 100 300 + tamron Tcx1.4, 1/2 the frame, but the carts were only doin 70kph and handheld.:)

[rainer_t]

I'm on the way to move from a EF 70-210/3.5-4.5 USM to the EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM...I still have both so I can compare. (The 70-210 is pretty much a sibling of your 100-300).

 

I miss ring-USM, the non-rotating frontlens and the better build quality. But IS really is applied magic ... especially in tele lenses.

[colin carron]

Jeff, I think you would benefit most by using an IS lens. The other thing is to keep the shutter speed as high as practicable so I usually shot hand held with full aperture or a stop down.

 

The Canon 70-300 IS is a very good lens, not in my mind quite as sharp as the 70-200 L lenses but pretty good all the same and I would expect it to be a noticeable improvemnt over the 100-300. I like it for its smallish size and unobtrusive black barrel. Here is an example used without tripod, IS on, at 300mm. The bit below the whole frame is a 500 pixel wide crop to show the kind of detail you can expect. his is just an ordinary frame, not specially selected but just the first I found at 300mm.

 

The 55-250 IS seems to be a good lens as well but I don't have any experience of using one.<div></div>

[richard_martin10]

Jeff, Thanks for the compliment, the car is moving at about 80 mph in that particular photo. I find the lighter weight of the 70-300 lens matches well with the XTi so handholding is pretty easy. Yes it is a slower lens but the IS does absolutely makes up for it. The image quality is miles above the 100-300 which I had for a brief time when I first got the camera.

[jeff_higdon]

I think I will try the monopod idea first. Though I like alot the photos I have seen in these responses with the 70-300, I guess I have to check out technique first. OTOH, I probably don't want to be carrying the monpod everywhere...

 

Attached is a photo I took at a baseball game with the 100-300 about two weeks ago. I like this one but they are few and far between. So I know the lens (and I) can do it, but it should not be this hard.

 

I think I will experiment a bit more with the 100-300 to see how I would get along with being limited to just 200mm and if that's workable maybe the 200 2.8 would be the best of both worlds (and it would be better - though not great - for indoor recitals as well); then, I'd just keep the 100-300 when I need the flexibility of the zoom.

 

Still, the posts above are a compelling argument for IS zooms.<div></div>

[matthias_meixner2]

Most consumer zooms need to be stopped down 1-2 stops to become sharp. This is the biggest difference to the L zooms: Most of them are sharp even wide open. If you do not need IS, the 70-200 f/4 L would probably give you the best image quality. It outperforms all consumer zooms even when used with a good 1.4x teleconverter (e.g. Kenko Pro) to get a reach similar to the 100-300.

 

I do not know US prices but the 70-200 f/4 L should be within/close to your budget.

[geoffm]

I used the 100-300 for several years until I upgraded to the 70-300. The IQ is *very slightly* better, but the IS is great. The loss of ring USM is a bugger, though, as focussing is noticeably slower. Is it worth the expense of the upgrade? I'm not sure, especially now that the new 55-250 IS is getting such good reviews. In fact, if I were buying today I'd look long and hard at the 55-250. The other contender (for me) was the 70-200/4 IS, but this is much more $, bigger, heavier, and loses the 200-300 range.

 

This was taken with my old 100-300. I don't think my 70-300 could do any better.<div></div>

[jeff_higdon]

Thanks, Geoff. Great jet photo.

 

I am concerned that maybe not enough people have experience with both lenses (the 100-300 and the 70-300 IS) to offer comparison. I see from your post that there may not be such a big difference - particularly if I do start using a tripod a bit more - say at those indoor recitals.

 

One of the suggestions above about the DO version intrigues me somewhat - based on of course the smaller size - but I've read a few pro reviews that are not all that kind to the DO version and by the time I pay for the DO version I could have bought the 70-200 f/4 IS and maybe if I had that I'd forget about shooting NFL and MLB games (where in some cities - mine - they are not allowed) so that "white lens" issue might not bother me. All of which makes me more confused than ever.

 

Though that 200 f/2.8 is still a possibility. I wonder how much I'd miss IS using that one.

[geoffm]

Regarding the NFL and MLB: If they will allow a 70-300 but not a 70-200/4 then it must be purely the white colour that bothers them. Nothing that a roll of black gaffer tape wouldn't fix! Or you could just cut the end off an old sock!

 

Do they let Nikon shooters through? :-)

[terry_smith2]

Have you considered the old 100-300/5.6L? No USM and push-pull zooming, but MUCH sharper than any something to 300 zoom on the market. I got one complete (box, case, lens and hood) for about USD 350 on ebay recently. Do not confuse with the 100-300/5.6 non-L lens, which is a rag.

[arjan_dijk1]

I'm willing to sell my 100-300L if you are interested. I live in the netherlands.

[jeff_higdon]

Arjan:

 

Thanks for the offer on the L - lens. I think I will look for something new. I have also just read the comments on your lens in this link:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003WYJ

 

I am leaning toward the 70-200 f/4 which, even though it is white and will not be allowed in certain venues, I think I will not miss not taking photos there and about once per year when I get on the sidelines of an NFL game I can use my 85 f/1.8. Am a little concerned about the lack of IS (I don't want to pay for the IS version) so we'll see. I may rent it first to be sure.

[raychang]

I bought the EF-S 55-250 last Friday.

 

The short to mid range of this lens (up to 200mm or so) is as good as my stoeln 70-200/4L. I'm not sure about the long end yet.

 

Two sample pictures, the 1st one at 179mm focal length and the 2nd one at 250mm.<div></div>

[raychang]

2nd pic<div></div>

[raychang]

Pictures too big.

 

179mm link:

 

http://24.34.40.11/colby-5-11-08/IMG_8402.JPG

 

 

250mm link:

 

http://24.34.40.11/colby-5-11-08/IMG_8413.JPG

 

 

Canon DRebel 300D

[jeff_higdon]

Ray:

 

Many thanks for your advice and for posting the photographs. They are very well done (I looked at the large ones) and now I must thank you for making my decision even more difficult!

 

I would be curious if anyone out there has tested the 55-250 against the 100-300 since the 100-300 has FTM and USM and appears to be a better build etc.

[raychang]

Hi Jeff,

 

I've only done a very casual hand held test with this lens. The 55-250 seems to be comparable to my 70-200/4L, maybe the 250 end is not as contrasty? I'm not sure.

 

I have some more lens test pictures at:

 

http://24.34.40.11/55-250/

 

Again, all hand held because that's how I shoot.

Click on the thumbnail (you may have to click on the picture itself again) to get full res.

[jeff_higdon]

Ray:

 

Thanks again for sharing great photos taken with the 55-250 IS. I like the flower photo and the dog in mid-air particularly. Obviously this lens is a winner. Will try it out via rental.