70-200mm__70-300mm Lens Need Opinions..

[RebelTasha]

I am looking at these two options for my Rebel however would it be completely pointless to get the 300mm without IS?
Or does it take ok pictures..
I was out and about today and there up a tree was a porcupine I would love to have got a picture of him that showed his features and not just a brown thing up a tree.
Would the 200mm serve this purpose?

Thank you

 

[davebmck]

I don't think the 200mm will get you close enough. The 300 maybe, a 400 definitely. If you are going to hand hold it, I would recommend the IS (OS,VR), unless you have very steady hands. Of course you don't need it if you use a tripod.

 

[soylentgreen]

Image stabilization is good to have, but not neccessary. People have been taking photos without it long before it was even a thought. My 400mm doesn't have IS (wish it did ), works perfectly fine. It's a matter of just keeping a lens steady. IS does help with hand-held shots to a ridiculous degree. I have taken 1/4 second shots with my 70-200 with great results. Do I reccommend you do that, no. But it is possible. Could get the same result with a good tripod too.
Image quality wise the 70-200 is better thant he 70-300 IS. You have the added benefit of an L lens and you can attach a 1.4x Teleconverter for added range. The 70-200 f/4L is a great lens for the price. Had one for a couple of years before upgrading to the f/2.8L IS. The 70-300 IS is nice albeit a bit soft wide-open. I found the focus a tad slow for a USM and the IS was noisy.
Range wise, the longer the better. Could never have enough reach. Just a matter of budget. Depending on the distances to said subject, the 70-300 gives you the best choice on a budget. The Sigma 50-500 is a decent bang-for-buck lens if you are not hyper-critical in the IQ department. The EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS is a proven workhorse before you step up into the primes.