What zoom lens?

Oli_jgb

Oli_jgb

Member
Having problems deciding

At the top end of my budget is:

Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM @ £285

Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 USM III Lens @ £235

Those are the two options I am currently considering. I am wondering whether it's worth the extra money for the first lens with the snappier ring USM and probably slightly better optics over all or whether I should save my £££ and get the second (plus the advantage of the wider focal range and f/0.5 extra).

Tough decision my fellow NSers! What do you think?
 
Have not heard good things about the 75-300mm USM III. Pictures are really soft and it will feel cheap.

"If you care about great image quality and sharp photos, the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens is not for you.

And Photoshop cannot enhance details that are not there."

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-75-300mm-f-4-5.6-III-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Just from that alone I would lean towards the 100-300mm despite the shorter zoom range and higher f-value. If you are going to be doing most of your shooting at nearer 300mm then even more reason to get the 100-300mm because the f-values are the same and it is a much better quality lens. At max zoom it will perform much better than the 75-300. The £50 more it costs is worth it imho.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-300mm-f-4.5-5.6-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Of the two you are looking at certainly the 100-300mm is the better lens but it might be worth thinking about it a bit more and seeing if there are any other lenses that fit the bill. Another option would be looking at refurbished/used lenses of a similar focal range but further up the price ladder (if they were new).

 
^ thanks, very useful insight there!
I am swinging towards the more expensive lens, I think it will be better and for action sports, a fast USM is really important.
BUMP FOR MORE ADVICE!
 
I feel like when it comes to lenses and glass, you get what you pay for and going cheap isn't always the best strategy.
 
I am thinking of extending my budget and getting the CANON 70-200 f4L USM LENS instead.
It's the best for what I want and has no compromises. Will hold it's value too, so it would probably make sense.
 
When I was thinking of different lenses/buying one used/refurbished. That was one of the ones I was thinking of (any one of the 70-200mm L's). It should work perfectly for what you want and I'm sure you will enjoy using it.
 
definitely drop the extra money for a 70-200 f4L, you'll be much happier in the long run. Weather resistant body, f/4 aperture through the whole range, USM, Full Time Focusing, Excellent optics, etc. etc. etc.

 
Probably the way to go if you can. I was going to go that route but then went with a Sigma 70-200 F2.8, I needed the faster aperture so I could get a shallower DOF. I shoot video with it, not really stills, but the few stills I have shot with it seemed great, so if you were looking at that lens at all I can tell you that I am happy with it. But there is no doubt that L series glass is better.
 
I fully agree. Those lenses that you are looking at will not come close to the optical and build quality of the 70-200. Do you really need to have a 300 lens? on a cropped sensor the 70-200 will reach pretty far. I have used the nikon 80-200 (older version) for shooting soccer and football (when i can get to the field) and 200 is plenty. I am soon going to pick up a nikon 70-200 because i loved it so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top