New Camera Lens

spacerobot

I am currently looking for a new telephoto camera lens for my Canon XT. I have come down to these three different models:
The Canon EF 70-200 f/4L USM

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

or the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM

Now I know the last one isn't really in the same league as the first two lenses. Let me explain. Originally I was thinking about just getting the 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM (non-IS) because it is very inexpensive. My schools newspaper has one, which I have borrowed from the photo editor to just mess around with. I had a lot of fun using it, but the shots were not always very clear or sharp, and using it indoors in poor lighting just gives me crappy, shaky, blurry shots. But it is inexpensive and can give me OK outdoors, well lit shots.

For the other two lenses, the problem for me comes to the cost. I don't really have that kind of money right now. However I am willing to be patient and save up for them, but that could be 3-4 months before I can afford it.

The initially I was thinking about the 70-300 IS lens. I've heard that image stabilization is really really nice, and can help me tons in those low light situations that the other 70-300 hurts me in. While reading the reviews on amazon, someone recommended the 70-200 L series. While the 70-200 only goes to 200mm instead of 300mm, I've heard that the L series are some very nice lenses. The disadvantage is that it has no image stabilization and can be slightly difficult in darker lighting.

So I guess my question is: which one? If I get the cheap one, I can use it now. If I get the 70-300 IS, I can have the luxury of 300mm and Image stabilization. And if I get the 70-200 I can have the luxury of an 'L' series, but no Image stabilization. Which one should I get?

I guess another question is, in normal lighting, does the 70-300 IS take pictures that are just as sharp as the 70-200 'L'?

Thanks for the help!

edit: and I don't know if it matters (if you want to recommend other lenses) but I already have the 18-55mm kit lens, and a 50mm f/1.8 "thrifty fifty" for my camera.

KMFurDM

The 70-300 IS. I have one.

The L lenses are nice but hugely expensive.

The 75-300 is nice and cheap, but just go to a store and hold one. There is a reason it's so cheap.

Check the reviews here...

http://www.photozone.de/reviews

Dark Moon

Well, you didn't really post a list of 3 identical lenses. Based on what you want to do with the lens the advice given will be different. If only image quality matters, get the 70-200 L f/4 - it's the sharpest zoom Canon's ever made and a gorgeous lens. If you need the extra 100mm, get the 70-300 IS. I've never personally shot with one, but it reviews spectacularly. The former will holds its value a lot better than the latter, though.

To help you decide whether you really a zoom up to 300mm, consider renting a 70-200 L f/4 for your next shoot. If you find yourself sitting at 200mm the entire shoot wishing you could just get a bit closer consider the 70-300 more closely. If you find yourself fine at 200mm, you're out a few dollars but now know what lens you want.

Oh, you won't be doing any handheld low light photography with any of these lenses. They're all simply too slow, even with the IS lenses buying you a stop or two (1/100" is still damn fast for poorly lit situations). For a medium to long telezoom that works well in low light, the only choice is the 70-200 L f/2.8. Fantastic lens, but unfortunately also $1700 and big like a house.

spacerobot

Dark Moon wrote: »

Well, you didn't really post a list of 3 identical lenses. Based on what you want to do with the lens the advice given will be different. If only image quality matters, get the 70-200 L f/4 - it's the sharpest zoom Canon's ever made and a gorgeous lens. If you need the extra 100mm, get the 70-300 IS. I've never personally shot with one, but it reviews spectacularly. The former will holds its value a lot better than the latter, though.

Yeah, I think the fact that they aren't identical makes it difficult for me... also the fact that I don't really have a specific type of shooting I like to do. I'm looking for a telephoto lens that has better quality than my kit lens. I've found myself in many situations where I'm just too far away to get the shot I want. the extra 100mm isn't terribly important to me, it just seems like a trade off with the 'L' series. Trading off 100mm and image stabilization for a really nice lens is the part I'm not sure about. At least I have several months to make up my mind.

Dark Moon

If you don't mind saving up the L is the way to go. It'll lose very little of it's value if you take good care of it and it's a wonderful lens. Should you ever really get into sports or wildlife you're going to want something longer than 200mm and the 300mm end of a slow zoom won't be fast enough for most situations and soft as hell wide open - you'll pick up a 300mm f2.8 if you get into sports or a 400/500 prime if you really get into birding. A 1.4x teleconverter will probably tide you over should you get into one of those two before coming into enough money to get the expensive lenses I mentioned.

I wouldn't be too worried about the lack of IS on the 70-200. With a long zoom like that, you'll end up being in either so much light you can stop down the lens like crazy (daylight) or so little light that you'd need a ridiculously expensive 70-200 f/2.8 to handhold the lens (most indoor lighting conditions). In both cases, having IS to buy you a few extra stops, while nice, is not all that helpful.

There is one other route, but I'm not sure of its validity: How are Canons for lens compatibility between generations? I ask only because I recently picked up the ancient Pentax equivalent of the L you're looking at right now (Pentax 70-210mm f/4) for $100 because it is 23 years old and manual focus. I love it to pieces already, and if older lenses work on your body I advise you take a look at your local classified ads, pawn shops, and camera stores with used sections.