Opinions

[george_gan1]

<p>I'm thinking of buying a Canon EF 100mm f/2 Macro USM and Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.<br>

Can I do better please advise</p>

[matthijs]

<p>You could of course do your homework.</p>

<p>You could of course state your intended usage so we've got some way of weighing our opinion.</p>

<p>You could even state your budget.</p>

<p>But you didn't.</p>

<p>Short and simple then.</p>

<p>The Canon EF 100/<strong>2.8</strong> USM Macro is perfect, just buy it and be happy.</p>

<p>The tele zoom isn't.</p>

<p>For the price it's great. For a crop camera you might be better of with the cheaper 55-250/IS and for all camera's you might be better of with a 70-200 (any L made by Canon). For certain uses you're better off with a prime of the exact focal length you need.</p>

<p>Etc etc etc.</p>

<p>The more you give us to work with the better our advice will be.</p>

[authoritee]

<p>According to B&H, you're spending $420 on the 100mm and $550 on the 70-300mm. Have you considered the Canon 70-200 f/4L USM for $640 together with the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM for $380? In my opinion, it is a much better value for your money.</p>

<p>The 70-200mm is way superior to the 70-300mm, with L type glass and a constant f/4 all throughout its focal range, while the 85mm has a faster/wider aperture over the 100mm, and works just as good for portraits and such matters.</p>

<p>At the end, the difference in budget is minimal, instead of investing $970 dollars, you'd be investing $1,020 dollars ($50 dollars more for a much better duo).</p>

[george_gan1]

<p>Sorry about not providing more info. I want to use the EF 70-3oom for night shots, kids in motion,sporting events indoor and out budget is not a problem.<br>

Any help will be appreciated.</p>

 

[amol]

<p>"night shots, kids in motion,sporting events indoor"</p>

<p>In this case, the 70-300 would <strong>not </strong> be a good option, nor would the 70-200 f/4. <br>

Instead, the "70-200 IS f/2.8" is probably a best option for a zoom, or/and add some primes such as the 85mmf/1.2L or 85mm f/1.8.<br>

You could get the 100mm f/2.8, if you didn't get a 70-200 f/2.8, but I wouldn't get both.</p>

[amol]

<p>Sorry, I didn't clarify the reasoning:</p>

<p>The 70-300 is a f/4-5.6 IS, the IS will not stop people in movement, and the f/4-5.6 is too slow. That is why I would recommend a f/2.8 or faster (f/1.8 or f/1.2). This allows for faster shutter speeds needed to stop motion.</p>

<p>I'm sure there are others who can explain the difference between IS vs. f/2.8. If you get both the 70-200 f/2.8 with IS, even better. (Canon also makes a 70-200 f/2.8 without IS)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, the 70-300 IS is a good buy for the money, but not for your purpose. You need something with at least an f/2.8 aperture, and the more faster the better. Primes will be faster, a lot faster, but you lose the flexibility of easily switching focal length. High ISO is your friend. Learn to love noise.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I'm thinking of buying a Canon EF 100mm f/2 Macro USM and Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.<br /> Can I do better please advise</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>For what? What camera do you shoot? What do you hope to accomplish with the upgrade? What do you do with your photographs?</p>

<p>These are fine lenses, but there are dozens of fine lenses.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Anything where your shooting motion the IS will not help you. A 70-200 non IS may be a good choice if you don't mind its size and bulk. The 85 1.8 is another high quality lens. What body are you shooting with? What other lenses do you have? Do you use flash? </p>

[gertle]

<p>George, I'm a bit confused in that Canon's 100mm Macro lens has an f/2.8 maximum aperture and Canon also provides a 100mm non-macro lens with a maximum aperture of f/2.0.<br>

Both are very fine lenses but they are not necessarily interchangeable in their intended purpose. You made reference to the 100mm f/2 macro. To which are you referring, or what is your intended purpose?</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Anything where you're shooting motion the IS will not help you</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see that written a lot, and it's <em>just</em> <em>wrong.</em> No matter how many times it's repeated, it still doesn't make it true.</p>

<p>You can get just as much camera shake shooting moving objects (at lower shutter speeds, say) as you can shooting still life.</p>

<p>Or - as is often the case for me, shooting birds with the 100-400mm handheld - I'm frequently out in windy conditions, and the IS <em>unquestionably</em> makes a difference in damping out small movements caused by wind buffeting, at <em>any</em> shutter speed.</p>

<p>On top of that, stabilisation makes it easier to get accurate AF point placement, as the image in the VF settles and allows for more accuracy in getting the AF point where is needs to be.</p>

<p>A stable platform is a stable platform - <em>and is every bit as important</em> - whatever you're shooting.</p>

[geoffm]

<p>I think what's meant is that IS will not help to "freeze" a moving <em>subject</em> , but it will help "freeze" a moving <em>camera</em> .</p>

<p>It appears that some beginners may form the mistaken impression that because IS lets you shoot hand-held in low light, it can also help stop subject movement at the same time. This probably arises from inadequate explanation (blame the salesperson?) of how IS works. IS enables you to hand-hold at a <em>slower </em> shutter speed - the opposite of the requirement for freezing motion.</p>