Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS VS Canon EF 70-300

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

10/23/2005 08:02:18 AM · #3

Yes, becasue its better For pretty much everything you just listed using it for...much faster lens (2.8), MUCH better picture quality (sharpness/color/contrast), better IS (shake as well as panning), and with the 1.6 crop of the 20D you still have a little extra reach. If you can afford it, it's hardly even a question ;)

Mark

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

10/23/2005 09:37:57 AM · #4

I don't know if people will agree with me, but I would think that for outdoor high speed photograpy, you should have enough light that a 100-400 F4.5 might make more sense. It really depends on if you are findng yourself wishing that you had a larger aperature.

Not to mention, that if you're happy with the 70-300, which is a nice lens (not to be confused with the optically inferior 75-30) then it might not be worth $1200 for a better lens.

and to correct bfox2, the 70-300 IS does have third generation IS, same as the 70-200IS.

FotoMunki

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/23/2005 09:53:31 AM · #5

Yes, I would upgrade. In fact, I did exactly that. I owned the the 75-300 and found the images wanting (very soft at 250+, even with IS). I rented a 100-400L from the local photography store and went shooting for the day. I determined "L" was DEFINITELY the way to go, but that the 100-400 was a little to long for my needs. The 70-200 L IS reported to be one of the best, most used lens by the pro's, for a variety of purposes (portraits to sports action), so I went for it. Best decision I made, re camera equipment (other than buying the 20D of course, that was a good decision too). :-)

FYI, I also upgraded my EF-S 17-85IS to the 17-40L, but I also have my eye on the new 24-105L.

gaurawa

10/23/2005 09:59:17 AM · #6

I had the 75-300 IS lens, but its slow focusing, I upgraded to 70-200 F4 L and it was a great lens, but no IS, so finally I upgraded to 70-200 F2.8 L IS and it really an amazing lens, great quality, bokeh and ofcourse IS. I can handhold shots up 1/30sec at 200mm without much problem.

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

10/23/2005 10:31:37 AM · #7

Originally posted by Haydens Mommy:

One thing to consider is whether the 70-200 is actually long enough for your purposes. You could, for example, check through a lot of your shots and see what focal length they were taken at. If the overwhelming majority were at 200 or below, you'll be OK. If the majority were at 300, then either you'd need a teleconverter with the 70-200 or could consider the 100-400, which is a somewhat slower lens.

coolhar

10/23/2005 01:19:52 PM · #8

If you decide to go for 70-200 I'd say save some bucks by selecting the non-IS version. The effect of IS is most helpful in low light and slow shutter speed situations. At the shutter speeds you use for your sports action and cycle racing shooting you won't need IS. Also consider the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG. Many consider it to be as good as it's Canon counterpart at a more reasonable price.

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

10/23/2005 01:38:43 PM · #9

Originally posted by coolhar:

I'd say that, given enough funds (quite a proviso), one should go for the IS version. Mode 2 for panning is very useful if, for example, one is using a shutter speed of, say, 1/125 to get background blur for motor sports.

coolhar

10/23/2005 01:55:26 PM · #10

Originally posted by AJAger:

1/125 sec is pretty slow, even with panning, for sports action type shooting. I really don't think IS is intended for that. It's works better and helps more when trying to capture a static, or nearly static, subject in low light. But Canon says 2-3 stops, so I guess you can try to use those stops any way you like.

I really hate to see brand loyalty and misunderstandings about features like IS bias the replies when people ask for advice about how to spend their money on lenses.

10/23/2005 02:06:46 PM · #11

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by AJAger:
I'd say that, given enough funds (quite a proviso), one should go for the IS version. Mode 2 for panning is very useful if, for example, one is using a shutter speed of, say, 1/125 to get background blur for motor sports.

1/125 sec is pretty slow, even with panning, for sports action type shooting. I really don't think IS is intended for that. It's works better and helps more when trying to capture a static, or nearly static, subject in low light. But Canon says 2-3 stops, so I guess you can try to use those stops any way you like.

I really hate to see brand loyalty and misunderstandings about features like IS bias the replies when people ask for advice about how to spend their money on lenses.

Don't forget that with the mode 2 IS, the image is stabilised in the vertical direction only. This is expressly intended for panning (think motor sports especially here). Forget brand loyalty, the Sigma OS lenses do the same.

gaurawa

10/23/2005 02:07:55 PM · #12

Originally posted by coolhar:

\
70-200 IS lens has a dedicated IS mode 2 for panning !!

10/23/2005 02:10:03 PM · #13

Originally posted by gaurawa:

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by AJAger:
I'd say that, given enough funds (quite a proviso), one should go for the IS version. Mode 2 for panning is very useful if, for example, one is using a shutter speed of, say, 1/125 to get background blur for motor sports.

1/125 sec is pretty slow, even with panning, for sports action type shooting. I really don't think IS is intended for that. It's works better and helps more when trying to capture a static, or nearly static, subject in low light. But Canon says 2-3 stops, so I guess you can try to use those stops any way you like.

I really hate to see brand loyalty and misunderstandings about features like IS bias the replies when people ask for advice about how to spend their money on lenses.
\
70-200 IS lens has a dedicated IS mode 2 for panning !!

That's what I was originally specifically referring to.

gaurawa