Another Which Lens?

[Prairie Hunter]

Looking to get some advice on which lens I should go with. I just picked up a used 40D with a 18-55 and want to get another lens with some reach. I shoot mostly wildlife, landscape, dogs and general use. I found these two lenses on B&H and they are close in price. Both get good reviews. Is there another lens that I am over looking in this price range? What would you do?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens $600

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens $550

[Todd Caswell]

Iv'e got the F/4L and really like it, it's a bit short for wildlife (birds) but it is a very sharp lens. And Use it alot for shooting dogs FT/HT and hunting photo's. I borrowed the 70-300 IS a couple of weeks ago just to compare and I don't feel the 70-300 was near as sharp as the "L" .. I liked the reach and the IS but I know I wouldn't trade.

Here are a couple from the 70-200.

[Steve Foss]

PH, while the 70-200 is one of Canon's finest series (L), in this case I think the combination of image stabilization and 100mm more reach would put me in the camp of the 70-300. Both advantages, in my mind, more than make up for it not being an L lens, and the 70-300 is an excellent piece of kit capable of excellent image quality. Canon has a handful of non L lenses that offer L image quality without the heavier build and expense of the Ls, and the 70-300 IS is one of them.

[Todd Caswell]

Steve,

What about AF speed, do you feel the 70-300 AF speed is comparible to the 200 in the right lighting conditions?

I know what your saying about the IS and Reach for that kind of money.

[finnbay]

I've shot both of these lenses, and unless you're shooting a lot of sports, the difference in AF speed is minimal.

[Prairie Hunter]

Thanks for the advice.

[Hwood]

I have the 70-300. I make it a point to stay at 200 or less. I think the quality of the shot drops after 200. But I am almost always handheld. I like the IS, but I would go with the 200 if I could do it again. Well it would be a 2.8 but still.....

[Prairie Hunter]

Hwood, I hear ya on 2.8 if only I could X3 my budget

Could you or would you be willing to post a example or two of a shot at 200mm and another at 300mm if it wouldn't be to much trouble?

[Hwood]

300mm at maybe 25 yards

300mm at.. a ways

260mm atleast 60 yards if I recall with a heavy crop.

300mm real close

This one is sharp. The lens in not junk, but these 4 shots are about all I saved pushing 300mm. For the most part everything else I save, in my short time spent with the camera, is at or under 200 mm. I was going to throw more stuff up under 200 mm but you could just look on flickr at some of my pics if you like. hwoodsphotos. I do not have any straight up 200 vs 300 shots for you. Keep in mind I am 1 year into this camera stuff and like I mentioned almost all handheld shots so I maynot be the best guy to refer to. And I know what you are saying about budget, it took many, I say many, years to get this rig.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Hwood,if this is not OK with you I'll delete it. I've had the 70-300IS also,and it does excellent work. It may take a little more PP to bring an image around than an "L" lens,but it is a quality lens-so I wouldn't pay any attention to what you might read on some other forums. Pretty much all lenses are sharp,but some non L lenses will need a little more boost in contrast and saturation in PP work to reveal what is there.

[Prairie Hunter]

Thanks Hwood! You have some nice pics on your flickr site. Did you take most those pictures with the 70-300?

[mcary]

[Note from admin: Please read forum policy before posting again. Thank you.]

[Hwood]

MarinerMagnum, you did a great job with the pic. Shows me that some better software may have to go on the wish list.

Praire Hunter, 95% of those pics. are with the 75-300.