Which Canon Zoom

[astroman]

Hi all,

At present I have 3 lenses for my Canon 40D, a sigma 10-20, canon 17-85 is, Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro and a sigma 28-300. I am perfectly happy with the 10-20, 17-85 is and 100mm macro. I want to replace the 28 - 300 as I find it akward to use and very soft at the long end.

I have narrowed it down to 2 lenses, the 70-200 f4 is usm or the EF 70-300 f4-5.6 is. My quandry is the 70-200 is twice the price of the 70-300, is it twice as good? (allowing for the extra 100mm focal lenght) I have read loads of reviews of both lenses, the reviews of the 70-200 all seem to suggest this`is one of the best lenses Canon have ever made, but those for the 70-300 give it very good reviews as well. (any other suggestions would be welcome but I would like IS)

Have any of you had the chance to use and compare these lenses in a practical way which can help me with my decision?

Thanks

Chris

[Roy C]

I cannot compare the two but I have the 70-200 f4 (non IS) and it is a superb lens. It also takes a 1.4 tc very well which will take you up to 280mm if required.

[Gidders]

I have the 70-300 IS and it does a pretty good job. I have lusted after a 70-200 f4 is but would want the 1.4 converter as well which although giving 280mm it at f5.6. So then you have the same range, the same f stop at the long end for what ... maybe a very marginal improvement in image quality.

When you can take shots like <<<this>>> or <<<this>>> I decided that the £1200 was better in my pocket

[sassan]

Though you will be initially happy with 70-300 IS (And definitely make sure by mistake you don't fall in for troublesome 75-300 IS), you will be permanently and in long run happy with any of the 70-200mm Sister lenses (4 sisters exist; F2.8 with IS - the most expensive and heaviest, F 4 Non IS the cheapest and lightest, funnily this cheaper one is the sharpest of all if an eye can differentiate that level of sharpness). Simply there is no other lens better than 70-200mm in terms of Color Render and Sharpness.

I suggest either Canon L 70-200mm or alternatively Sigma 70-200mm F2.8. Then you can decide on a TC later on.

Have fun.

[john the joiner]

Hi have you consided [ef70-300 f4.5-5.6 do is usm] I have used one for about twelve months. Very pleased with pefomance .Also not too heavy.regards john

[Joe]

Definately around the 80-200 or 70-210mm but 2.8 glass. Don't know what I'd do without mine.
wider zoom ranges are great 'til you start blowing up the images, or using in low light. I would go for S/H Canon or new from independant manufacturers for similar money to darker ones you've suggested.

[fotonunta]

I am sooooo appreciative of your information here. I have a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM telephoto and a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4, but I wanted something more like what you described the 24-105 as a "walk around" lens. I need something between those two. I think I'm going with that one.

[Ade G]

I have the sigma 17-70 which seems pretty good and gets good reviews, I use this all of the time (its my only lens Lol) but will be pairing it with the canon 70-200 f4 as soon as finances allow. Gets better reviews every where than the sigma 70-200 f2.8. Canon lens can be picked up 2nd hand for bet £600-700. I was surprised how much lighter than the Canon f2.8 it was when I looked at both at the photography show. the 2.8 is a fair lump to lug about.

[Dave598]

I have a 70-300 mm and I love it. Although I am looking at getting a different telephoto lens for shooting wildlife and birds.,