Zoom lens

[mackenzie_archer]

Hello. I currently use a Canon EOS 1200D with a 75-300mm F/4-5.6 III USM. I'm a plane spotter at my local airport. I'm looking for a

better lens. I have some requirements. It must be able to zoom out further than 100mm. 70 is good. Must also have 300mm of zoom

(Basically my current lens) but I'm looking for better image quality. Can't quite afford an L but if I could 70-300 L would be what I'd buy.

Any suggestions?<div></div>

[massimo_foti]

<p>The 70-300 IS (the non-L version) seems like a good candidate, very good value for money. It's image quality is pretty good, I would expect it to be significantly better than the 75-300. Autofocus isn't blazing fast but decent. Here you can see a set of pictures I took with this lens during an airshow a few years ago:<br /><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/massimofoti/albums/72157624452960833">https://www.flickr.com/photos/massimofoti/albums/72157624452960833</a><br /> <br />Tamron 70-300 is another alternative, cheaper, with comparable image quality, but I am afraid autofocus speed would be even worst. I don't have first hand experience with it so I am based my comments on reviews and forum's posts.</p>

<p>Hope it may help</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Well, frankly, an EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM would seem to meet your criteria. It's image quality is significantly better than that of your current lens. The Tamron version is just as good, and significantly cheaper though. </p>

[mackenzie_archer]

Ok after researching the lens, many people say the Tamron 70-300 is a bit better. It has full time manual focus which is

definitely a + for me. Not sure which one to get

[dcstep]

<p>A really super lens, available new and used with true L-quality image quality is the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. Combined with an EF 1.4x TC you're right at your focal length goal and at f/5.6. If you can live without the extra 20mm, you'll up your image quality substantially. You might also look for a used 70-300L.</p>

<p>Looking at the lens comparisons on the-digital-picture.com , the Tamron's don't look at all close to the Canon Ls in this range. For the non-L 70-300mm, they do compete. You can decide for yourself by looking at the lens comparisons.</p>

[mackenzie_archer]

My ideal lens would be the 70-300 L but I can't afford it new or used. The 70-200 is even more expensive than the 70-300

[peter_c5]

Have you considered the Canon 100-400 IS L Mark 1? Now that it's been superseded by the Mark 2 version it should be

available secondhand at a reasonable price, and I'd think you'd find the 400 end even more useful than 300. As for image

quality, a good one will blow your 75-300 out of the water!

[colin carron]

<p>I have used the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM as suggested by some above and can vouch for it being a very good lens. The Tamron suggested above is also said to be on a par with the Canon, with some preferring the Canon and others preferring the Tamron.<br>

The Canon f4-5.6 L IS USM is better still but more expensive and a bit bigger. If it is beyond your current budget then either of the ones I and others have mentioned would make very good substitutes.Their image quality is not quite up to the L level but very good nonetheless.<br>

Here is an example of a shot of a couple of puffins taken with the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM showing the sort of level of performance you can expect. First the whole frame.....</p><div></div>

[colin carron]

<p>....and now the cropped, sharpened version from that image. The camera was hand-held and the lens was the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM.</p><div></div>

[mackenzie_archer]

Yes I've considered it Peter. I just can't zoom out enough though with it. I wouldn't be able to fit the whole plane in the

frame at 100mm so I need something that can zoom out a bit more.

 

Impressive results Colin. I think that's probably the lens for me.

[neill_farmer2]

<p>There are two possible Canon tele lenses within your budget that have a good image quality. The 55-250 STM or the 70-300 IS. While the L lenses take the quality to another level they could be expensive over kill for your purposes. While the STM is a little more expensive than the non STM 55 250, it seems to have glowing reviews. On your crop camera these lenses will produce an angle of view similar to a 90-400 and 112-480 lens on Full frame a camera.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Neill said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"...The 55-250 STM or the 70-300 IS. While the L lenses take the quality to another level they could be expensive over kill for your purposes..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When is better IQ every "expensive over kill"?</p>

<p>He's moving up because he's unhappy with his current IQ. His body can handle a high quality lens. It has resolution comparable to top end cameras from six or eight years ago. If IQ matters to the photographer, then there's no such thing as overkill, so long as your printing in sizes where the differences can be seen. (We really don't know how he's displaying, but since he's noticed IQ deficiencies, I'll assume that he's actually seeing problems).</p>

[mackenzie_archer]

Ok if I get a new lens I've decided the 70-300. I have another choice, do I buy a non L soon or wait a year or so and get

the 70-300 L? I'm leaning towards waiting because I don't desperately need a new lens my current one is doing okay. L

would last me a long time too

[colin carron]

<p>I used to have the non-L Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM but sold it and bought the L version instead - the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS USM. As a personal view here are the pro's and con's :<br /> non-L version:<br /> pros : smaller, lighter, not white! , cheaper<br /> L version<br /> pros : somewhat sharper, better contrast esp at 300mm, faster focusing and IS.<br /> What I disliked about the non-L was the rather muddy image quality which was often apparent at 300mm. The L version was better in this respect with rather 'cleaner' images. Better sharpness is present with the L lens but the difference is not stunning - just noticeably sharper and a cleaner image. For birds in flight (and aircraft in flight) the faster focusing and IS is a help. <br /> If it were me making your decision and I could save the extra without missing anything important I would probably save up for the L.<br /> Of course taking that one stage further you could save up even more for the 100-400. The Mk I version is now reasonably priced and can still be bought new and with the Mk II version appearing there are quite a few second hand examples around. For airshows etc that is maybe the ideal lens but it is much bigger, heavier and pricier than the 70-300 L.</p><div></div>

[colin carron]

<p>...and now taken with the Canon 70-300 L - a similar crop to the last example with the non-L lens. I have tried to keep the shots as similar as possible for comparison but obviously this is not a scientific comparison. Sites such as<br /> www.photozone.de <br /> are useful to give good comparative reviews.</p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>There's no comparison. The L blows away the non-L.</p>

<p>See for yourself at The-Digital-Picture.com for comparisons using standard, repeatable charts, properly exposed. I'd provide a link, but this site will not allow it for that site, for some unknown reason.</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>Mackenzie. There is no doubt that the 70-300L and the 100-400L are the bees knees for aviation photography. I assumed you were a New Zealander and on a budget? Lenses in NZ cost a lot more than in NY. Hence my hesitation to recommend the Ls, one of which I have. Of the two non Ls, the 55-250 STM has the better reputation and is sharp at both ends of the zoom range. It is good value for money. The 70-300IS is an older lens and is not so good in the 200-300mm range. You are right to go looking at better lenses as the 1200D is a perfectly good camera for aviation photography. I suggest you price both the Ls and the two non Ls and make your own decision of cost vs excellence. As an indication you can crop either L at 100% and still have a sharp image suited for the web or A4 printing. The non L 70-300IS might find this treatment a bit of a stretch. Good luck and go the Wallabies.</p>

[mackenzie_archer]

Pfft Wallabies? Be sensible. Yep the L is 1100 NZD more than the non L. The reason I'm considering the L is because I'm

not likely to need to replace it for quite a while. I did go through a phase where I wanted a better camera but realised that

having all the best gear isn't important.

[neill_farmer2]

<p>If the NZ$1100 is not too much of a stretch I'd get the 70-300L. It is a lens that will last forever and the optics, focussing and IS are first class. A country mile ahead of the 70-300IS. A few guys at BNE are using the new 100-400 Mk2, it seems to be as good as the 70-300L, but then we need 400mm as the viewing distance is greater. Did you see Pocock give the interview the other day? Two black eyes and sprig cuts all over his face. Gunna be a great match.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>At some point, many of us pay the piper to get IQ. When IQ doesn't matter, you shop by price. When IQ matters, you shop by IQ and find a way to get it done.</p>

<p>One good thing about Canon L-series lenses is that they tend to be "investments". I bought my first 500/f4L in 2009 for $6100 and sold it this last January for $5,500. With that in mind, paying $8,500 for the replacement was not so bad.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>I have the ancient 100-300 f/5.6 L. It is cheap to buy used and the image quality is reasonable, but autofocus is slow. It might work okay given that aeroplanes move mostly in a straight line, so don't require the autofocus to dance about in the same way as sports photography.</p>

[randy_paulson]

<p>I know I'm really late to this party, but there's another option that hasn't been tossed around. A few years ago I picked up a Canon 70-300 DO, one of the diffractive optics lenses. It has a pretty bad reputation, but I've found that by adding a bit of sharpening and some contrast in post, it really performs nicely. About the only time I use it is when I'm on a cruise doing an off ship excursion and want a walk around lens with a bit more reach than my 24-105. This lens probably takes a larger hit when sold used than any other Canon lens. List is around $1400, but they are often less than $500 on the used market. Adorama has an E- copy right now for $489.</p>