Hi everyone. I am graduating college and can now afford a decent lens for my camera. I think I have decided to go with a 70-300mm or 100-300mm zoom and have it narrowed down to these lenses below. Which one of these would you get and why? Also if you have any other suggestions in the same price range feel free to list those too. Thanks!
If I had to choose between the three it would probably be this one.
I agree. I have used mine far more than I thought I would have. Its great for outdoor shots, and the IS makes a huge difference, especially if your like me and handhold everything.
Haha, thanks for all the comments! That one lens IS indeed "a bit pricey" lol. I think I'll stick around the <=$500 range. Most of you confirmed what I already thought though, I think I will go with the Canon. :)
Yes, I've been looking at these myself. The biggest issue I'm finding is that there are no tele lenses in this class that will take a polarising filter. They all have rotating fronts.
But, that aside, the Canon 70-300 IS USM is far and away the leader of this pack. Go for it!
Yes, I've been looking at these myself. The biggest issue I'm finding is that there are no tele lenses in this class that will take a polarising filter. They all have rotating fronts.
But, that aside, the Canon 70-300 IS USM is far and away the leader of this pack. Go for it!
I havn't tried them but have been thinking of trying one of the circular polarizers, or are they pretty much useless?
I would take a look at the Canon 70-200 f/4 (non IS). It's a very nice and sharp lens and just about in your price range, has a constant aperture, internal focusing/non-rotating front element, much better build quality, etc.
My roommate actually had the 70-200 f/4L lens and loved it but I think I'd like that extra 100mm of zoom so I would rather have the 70-300mm, and the IS is always a plus. So I think I have decided on that Canon 70-300 IS and my next lens purchase after that will be the Sigma 10-20 :)
70-200 F4 and a 1.4TC would be better than the 70-300. Own everything just mentioned, used it all many times. No comparison between the two lenses and the 1.4 TC has negligible impact on image quality with the 70-200.
Of course, the 70-200 f/4 and 1.4X will cost quite a bit more than the 70-300 IS...
Personally I went for the 70-200 f/4 IS and will add the TC later if I really want the length - but that ends up costing quite a bit more :). But the images that come out of the 70-200 f/4 IS are flat out awesome...
Of course, the 70-200 f/4 and 1.4X will cost quite a bit more than the 70-300 IS...
Unless things have changed dramatically in the past 6 months or so, I'm pretty sure the 70-300 IS was a 900 dollar lense when I bought it. 70-200 F4 is 600 and change, TC is a hundred bucks.
edit: I see you are talking about the IS f4. Below they were talking non-IS.
I just saw on B+H they have an excellent condition used Canon F/4L for $479, that's saving $100. I've never bought used, but I guess coming from B+H you'd be pretty safe. I can't find the teleconverter on there though, it only brings up Tamrom and Kenko TC's for some reason.
Of course, the 70-200 f/4 and 1.4X will cost quite a bit more than the 70-300 IS...
Unless things have changed dramatically in the past 6 months or so, I'm pretty sure the 70-300 IS was a 900 dollar lense when I bought it. 70-200 F4 is 600 and change, TC is a hundred bucks.
edit: I see you are talking about the IS f4. Below they were talking non-IS.
Actually I was referring to the non-IS in the first statement. Over here in UK-land the non-IS f/4 costs a bit more than the 70-300IS. Or were you referring to the DO version of the 70-300? In the UK the 70-300 DO costs more than the 70-200 f/4L IS which makes it a bit pointless IMO.
Personally I did buy the IS version of the 70-200 - to me it seems nuts to do without IS on such a lens these days.
