Originally Posted by Dragoon
Wow... long time sice I wandered around here.
Gone, equipment update, please add a LowePro Fastpack 250
to the list
I decided to dump the idea of getting an EF 28-135mm and to get a 70-300mm IS USM instead. I also "drooled" over a 70-200mm f/4 USM which only costs a bit more, but the lack of IS on a telephoto lens was a wake up slap.
Before I pull the trigger, is there anything I should consider? If there are any better lens than those (around the same price range) with approximately the same focal range.
Originally Posted by mrwesth
Unless you need the added reach of the 70-300, then I would say screw IS and go for the 70-200mm f4. Stabilization is nice but not necessary. Its more or less a convenience. Pull out a monopod/tripod or use the camera strap to stabilize...
Of course this is all my opinion.
(Could also look at the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 for a little bit more)
Welcome back Dragoon, enjoying the 1000D? I agree with mrwesth says, the 70-200 f/4 is better for a number of reasons:
1. Sharper (though not by much, the 70-300 is decent)
2. Past 200mm, the 70-300mm is fairly soft, so you might find yourself not going past 200mm with it because of that.
3. the L lens has a constant f/4 aperture, so when shooting at 200mm at f/4, you may not see a huge difference in hand held shooting at 200mm at f/5 with IS. Plus it's nice to have f/4 at all times for blurring backgrounds and narrow DOFs.
4. The L has MUCH better build quality, it's weather sealed, focuses and zooms internally, and has smoother zoom and focus rings. Conversely, the 70-300 extends quite a bit when zooming (exposing itself somewhat to dust and moisture), the front element rotates (annoying for using CPLs), probably prone to lens creep, and is mostly plastic (less likely to survive an impact). This is probably the biggest difference between the two lenses.
5. The L lens has ring-type USM, which is faster than the micro-motor USM on the 70-300 (though it isn't slow by any means).
I partially agree about IS being just a convenience. If you will be shooting wildlife, panning shots, or other fast moving subjects, or low-light hand held, it's vital in my opinion since you aren't able to open the aperture very wide on the 70-300. The IS on the 70-300 is basic but effective (no mode 1 & 2).
On another note Dragoon, and despite the higher price you have to pay for lenses, I strongly encourage you to try and save for the 70-200mm f/4 L USM IS. It's a work of art it's so damn good. The IS on it is very advanced (4th gen.) and gives a 4-stop advantage, plus it has two modes (one for panning); it's worth every penny extra over the non-IS version. It also has few extra lens elements and is sharper, you can pick any aperture or focal length at random and it's dead sharp.
Hope that helps.
Christ, thanks a lot, now I have to hear his voice, as if looking at him and reading what he writes wasn't bad enough.Edited by GoneTomorrow - 9/10/09 at 8:29pm