[sixty7a]

Hello
I purchased a Canon D60 and 28-135 4-5.6 IS lens used a bit over a year ago and love this set up. Most of my work is high school seniors and model portfolios as well as some photojournalist work for stock images.

I'm now considering a second lens and trying to decide between the Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS lens or the Canon 70-200 f4 L series. The cost is close to the same but I have been told that the 70-300 IS shoots best under 200mm at f8-11. If this is true then would I not be better off with the faster yet less reaching 70-200. Even without the IS feature I would still be able to shoot at faster speeds.

Thanks for any input.

[EnglishBob]

IF your going to continue with the same type of shots, I would go with the 200.

[StudioJ]

Based on what you shoot if you don't need the extra 100mm of reach I'd be inclined to go for the 70-200, it gives beautiful images.

[Wedding Shooter]

I would go with the 70-200 f4. If you find later that you need the extra reach you could always get a teleconverter.

[Kombisaurus]

Hey Sixty7a,

I faced exactly this choice when I got my 350D early in the year (75-300 IS versus the 70-200 f/4 L) and I went with the 70-200 and have been very happy with it. I thought I'd really miss the extra length, but never give it a second thought. I've got an olympus screw-on 1.7x teleconvertor (which does an OK but not great job), but I never bother to use it simply because the extra focal length isn't that important to me. Given the same choice again, I would pick the 70-200 again without hesitation. And apparently Canon have recently discontinued the 75-300 IS lens.

But... if you already have a 28-135 then maybe the 70-200 is too much of an overlap for you to be worth getting a new lens? The difference between 135 and 200mm isn't all that much, and in fact you could just use a teleconvertor on your 135 lens to get there. Which brings us back to the 75-300 IS lens, which although optically inferior to the 70-200, might be more useful?

But does it have to be between those two lenses though? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with either of them, but there are a few others that might be worth considering depending on what your needs are.

If you can afford it, there is the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. The IS version is really expensive, but the non-IS is a bit more affordable (but still by no means cheap). I guess you already know about these and, like me, can't justify the cost.

Sigma also make a 70-200 f/2.8 I think which I've heard is not quite as good as the Canon f/2.8, but still very nice. I think it costs around the same as the Canon 70-200 f/4 though, so at least its in the same $$$ ballpark. I'm not sure of my facts on the sigma though.. so don't take my word for it. Also check out the longer sigma lenses... the Sigma "Bigma" 50-500mm is a slowish but well-regarded lens in the price range as the 70-200 f/4. Optically it won't match the 70-200 L, but I think it isn't bad. It will also give you the focal range you need (and then some) if you don't mind lugging it around with you.

Depending on what your use will be, it might also be worth looking at a couple of the cheaper Canon prime telephotos. A lens which I've got my eye on at the moment is the Canon 135mm f/2.0 L prime (which costs a little more than the 70-200 f/4). Now I know it doesn't have the length or flexibility of either the 200 or 300 zooms.. but f/2.0!!!!!! Imagine the possibilities... who needs IS? If I start doing more indoor sports shooting then this will be on top of my list. But I guess if you've already got a 28-135 lens then its not really extending your range, just giving you beautiful images at the 135 end. Other options might be the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L which is about the same price as the 70-200 f/4. You lose the flexibility of the zoom, but gain an extra stop of aperture (and no doubt sharper images being a prime). If the extra length of a 300mm lens is important to you, the Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS prime lens isn't all that expensive considering it is a 300mm L lens with IS, and comes in around the same price as the 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS). Still considerably more than the 70-200 f/4, but cheap considering the price territory you are beginning to tread into with those kind of lenses.

Have I confused you more now?

But.. bottom line I think they all do a fine job. It just depends on what job you want them to do I guess (and how deep your pockets are).

Cheers
Adrian

[adam]

I've found that the longer I consider the options, the more I keep changing my mind.
At the moment the 135mm f/2L is what I'm looking at

[StudioJ]

How about a 200mm 1.8?

[Kombisaurus]

ooo StudioJ. Are you offering? :o
I'd happily swap my 70-200 f/4L for your 200 f/1.8!

They are well and truly discontinued, and I don't know what they sold for new but I suspect a LOT more than the current 200m f/2.8L. A quick search of eBay shows me that even 2nd hand they seem to be around AU$4000.

But yeah... I'd loooove to get my hands on one for indoor sports.

I also read that Canon no longer repairs them!
Here is a scary little thread that should be of some concern to all (D)SLR owners, as we will all probably end up with discontinued lenses at some time or another and might need to get them repaired.

Adam, that's interesting that you have your eye on the 135 f/2 too! cool. I'd love to hear your thoughts/experiences (either with it or any alternative that does a similar job).

[StudioJ]

200 1.8's are rarer than hens teeth, most of the EBay ones are dodgy. I've never even seen one. A guy I work with doing motorsport will buy one if he can ever find a real one. More likely to find one in the classifieds on the same site you linked to (Sportsshooter.com) which is where he has been looking.

Some cheap gear there if you know a member, Original 1D's go quite cheaply.

[sixty7a]

Hey Guys
Thanks for all the imput. I made the purchase and it'll be here Friday!

I purchased a Canon EF 200 f2.8L for $599.00 Like New- from KEH.com
Can't wait to get out there this weekend with it. The more I thought about it the overlap between the 70-200 and the 28-135 was kinda much. So I opted for the speed of the 2.8. I'm happy with the decision and sure I'll be equally happy with the lens.

I'll post some shots next week!

[Wedding Shooter]

Sounds like a good compromise.

[Kombisaurus]

Sounds like good sensible thinking... and a great lens

Pics! Pics! Pics!

[sixty7a]

Forgot one other plus to adding this, it takes the same size filter as my existing lens!

BTW: It arrived today! Can't wait to try it out.