NEED HELP!!!!!!

repsol12 · Sep 25, 2011

Okay so heres the question: which is better, the canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or the EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM?

More info....I race motorcycles and while Im at the track and not riding I like to snap shots of friends on the track, and while Im riding, my gf likes to shoot me. Currently I have an EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III and it sucks! out of 3600 pictures we usually only keep about 300 and those tend to be a little blurry. Sharp pictures are rare and Im sure with our skill set, more luck than anything else.

I went to my local photo shop and they told me the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM would be perfect for my needs and still be moderately affordable. They told me that the L series lenses are the "cadillacs" of lenses but so expensive they arent worth it for me. Ive done a bit of research though and found that most people say that the 75-300mm IS is garbage. Its long, not sharp, etc, etc. One guy even said its so slow that his small kids could beat it in a race in manual over the lense in auto. This is very discouraging considering the lens, for me, is still pretty pricey. I mean the lens costs more than my DSLR so I dont want a garbage lens for that price.

Would my money be better spent on the IS lens or the L series? I dont know just how much Id lose in distance dropping down to a 200mm over a 300mm and being stuck at f/4 means nothing to me (i shoot mostly day shots though so I assume thats not an issue). The L lens is only a few bucks more for what is claimed to be a better quality lens, but I dont know which would be better suited for my needs.

Any and all advice is welcomed.

PS - Im saving for a 7D so Im not sure if that will play a factor in which would be better once I get a better camera.

katerolla · Sep 25, 2011

L lens are better quality lens but i,m suspect that its not the lens or camera but the photographer that is shooting not sharp photos, its realy hard to say with out seening the photos.
post some photos for us to see and we'll try and help you

repsol12 · Sep 25, 2011

katerolla said:
L lens are better quality lens but i,m suspect that its not the lens or camera but the photographer that is shooting not sharp photos, its realy hard to say with out seening the photos.
post some photos for us to see and we'll try and help you

here are two

repsol12 · Sep 25, 2011

or not. how do you make the images attach?

MTVision · Sep 25, 2011

You can't attach pictures. You have to host them through another site. In beginners forum there is a thread that tells you how to post pictures

repsol12 · Sep 26, 2011

okay instead of getting a flickr or photobucket and going through all that trouble (for now) here are three links to two track day albums from my facebook. youre welcome to look around and give feedback.

Again, we are novice photographers at best, but even on a tripod, the 75-300mm just is not that great.

Facebook (oldest)
Facebook (most recent track weekend)
Facebook (the rest of the most recent track weekend)

MTVision · Sep 26, 2011

Most people wont take the time to follow links.

Big Mike · Sep 26, 2011

There are many different 70(75) to 300mm zoom lenses. Canon makes three or four different models and there are also models from companies like Sigma or Tamron that will fit your camera.

The cheap versions (<$200) aren't all that good. They are OK in good light, but aren't of much use if the lighting isn't great. But to be fair, they aren't garbage and may be plenty good enough for a lot of people.

The 75-300mm with IS, is a much better lens. The IS does help and it also has better quality materials. Of course, that makes it rather expensive.

The 70-200mm F4 L, is an L series lens....so yes, it's like a Cadillac of lenses. Image quality is amazing, build quality is very good. This one is actually a great price for such a high quality lens. But it should be noted that Canon makes 4 versions of this lens as well. The F4, the F4 with IS, the F2.8 (larger max aperture) and the best one, 70-200mm F2.8 L IS. The price goes up with each model, the current (new) version of the 2.8 with IS, is about $2500.

subscuck · Sep 26, 2011

With a planned upgrade to a 7D, if it's me, I'd go with the "L". The 7D is pretty resolution hungry and will easily show limitations in lenses of lesser quality. I guess what bothers me a bit is someone in a camera store telling you an "L" lens isn't worth it for you. How does he/she know what'll be "worth it" to you? Better glass will make an improvement on any body.

repsol12 · Sep 27, 2011

subscuck said:
With a planned upgrade to a 7D, if it's me, I'd go with the "L". The 7D is pretty resolution hungry and will easily show limitations in lenses of lesser quality. I guess what bothers me a bit is someone in a camera store telling you an "L" lens isn't worth it for you. How does he/she know what'll be "worth it" to you? Better glass will make an improvement on any body.

Thank you! Now its a choice of four lenses. lol. The 70-200mm f/4L with IS or without it, and the 70-200mm f/2.8L with or without IS. The price difference is nearly $2k but I think ill be buying used anyway so I might be able to get the higher of the 4 for a fair price. I also think Ive ruled out the 70-200mm f/4L USM because for a little more money, the IS will be a better lens in the long run. So now its between the three. I just dont know what the f/4 vs f/2.8 really means. I know its how wide the aperature will be when taking the picture and thus more light on the sensor but I dont know what that really means for a photo.

Big Mike · Sep 27, 2011

I know its how wide the aperature will be when taking the picture and thus more light on the sensor but I dont know what that really means for a photo.

No offense, but if you don't know what that means for a photo...you probably shouldn't be spending this kind of money on it.

Aperture has everything to do with photography. The larger the aperture, the more light you can let it...which means that you can use a faster shutter speed (and/or lower ISO). A faster shutter speed can mean less motion blur. Less motion blur can mean sharper photos. Being able to use a lower ISO means less digital noise in your images.
Also, the larger the aperture, the shallower the depth of field (DOF). Being able to create a shallow DOF is a big reason why people buy lenses with large maximum apertures.

As for the difference between F4 and F2.8...it's one stop. In other words, F 2.8 is twice as large as F4, it lets in twice as much light.
So if you were shooting at F4 and got a shutter speed of 1/100, you could use F2.8 and get a shutter speed of 1/200 (for the same amount of exposure). That could be the difference between a sharp shot and a blurry shot.
But to think of it another way, it's only one stop. You could make up that exposure by changing the ISO from 200 to 400. And modern cameras are much better than older cameras, when it comes to noise at higher ISO. So by that reasoning, it may not be worth the extra cost to buy the F2.8 version, if your camera is capable of great images at higher ISO. But even then, there is always a limit and thus a situation where being able to use F2.8 would be a benefit.

There is also the size & weight to think about. The F2.8 version is much bigger and heavier than the F4 version. You may not want to tote the F2.8 version around all day.

For me, it came down to wanting the best tool for the job. I knew that if I cheaped out and bought the F4 version (or didn't get IS) that I would soon find myself in a situation where I'd be sorry. So I got the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS. But now I'm a little sad that there is a new version (II) which is even better.

On that last point, there is a new version of the 2.8 IS. That is the one that costs $2500. The version one, which may still be available in some stores, should be selling for around $1800. And if you are looking on the used market, you may be able to find the first version for $1200-$1500.

repsol12 · Sep 27, 2011

Big Mike said:
I know its how wide the aperature will be when taking the picture and thus more light on the sensor but I dont know what that really means for a photo.

Click to expand...

No offense, but if you don't know what that means for a photo...you probably shouldn't be spending this kind of money on it.

Aperture has everything to do with photography. The larger the aperture, the more light you can let it...which means that you can use a faster shutter speed (and/or lower ISO). A faster shutter speed can mean less motion blur. Less motion blur can mean sharper photos. Being able to use a lower ISO means less digital noise in your images.
Also, the larger the aperture, the shallower the depth of field (DOF). Being able to create a shallow DOF is a big reason why people buy lenses with large maximum apertures.

As for the difference between F4 and F2.8...it's one stop. In other words, F 2.8 is twice as large as F4, it lets in twice as much light.
So if you were shooting at F4 and got a shutter speed of 1/100, you could use F2.8 and get a shutter speed of 1/200 (for the same amount of exposure). That could be the difference between a sharp shot and a blurry shot.
But to think of it another way, it's only one stop. You could make up that exposure by changing the ISO from 200 to 400. And modern cameras are much better than older cameras, when it comes to noise at higher ISO. So by that reasoning, it may not be worth the extra cost to buy the F2.8 version, if your camera is capable of great images at higher ISO. But even then, there is always a limit and thus a situation where being able to use F2.8 would be a benefit.

There is also the size & weight to think about. The F2.8 version is much bigger and heavier than the F4 version. You may not want to tote the F2.8 version around all day.

For me, it came down to wanting the best tool for the job. I knew that if I cheaped out and bought the F4 version (or didn't get IS) that I would soon find myself in a situation where I'd be sorry. So I got the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS. But now I'm a little sad that there is a new version (II) which is even better.

On that last point, there is a new version of the 2.8 IS. That is the one that costs $2500. The version one, which may still be available in some stores, should be selling for around $1800. And if you are looking on the used market, you may be able to find the first version for $1200-$1500.

No offense taken. I dont want to go get an "all-the-bells-and-whistles" lens and not have a clue what im doing with it. However, Ill be pissed if I go buy a lesser quality lens, learn what everything is, then wish Id gotten the better lens and have to go spend even more money to upgrade. Im not totally clueless to what Im doing, but when it comes to the difference in a 200mm to a 300mm and just how much distance that equates out to in a picture, or what an f/4 to an f/2.8 really means when it comes to the actual photo taken, I dont have a comparison available to know the difference. I understand that a larger f number equates to more light, i know a higher ISO means more noise, and I know a faster shutter speed means less light. I just dont know how to combine all of these settings yet to get a great exposure with good clarity and sharpness.

Thanks for the rest of your post and the advice you give.

Big Mike · Sep 27, 2011

No offense taken. I dont want to go get an "all-the-bells-and-whistles" lens and not have a clue what im doing with it. However, Ill be pissed if I go buy a lesser quality lens, learn what everything is, then wish Id gotten the better lens and have to go spend even more money to upgrade. Im not totally clueless to what Im doing, but when it comes to the difference in a 200mm to a 300mm and just how much distance that equates out to in a picture, or what an f/4 to an f/2.8 really means when it comes to the actual photo taken, I dont have a comparison available to know the difference. I understand that a larger f number equates to more light, i know a higher ISO means more noise, and I know a faster shutter speed means less light. I just dont know how to combine all of these settings yet to get a great exposure with good clarity and sharpness.

Well, you do seem to have a handle on the basics, so that's a good start. And yes, it is a good idea to do your homework and make purchases that will satisfy you now, and in the future. To kudos for that.

bazooka · Sep 27, 2011

repsol12 said:
Im not totally clueless to what Im doing, but when it comes to the difference in a 200mm to a 300mm and just how much distance that equates out to in a picture, or what an f/4 to an f/2.8 really means when it comes to the actual photo taken, I dont have a comparison available to know the difference.

You can absolutely tell the difference between 200mm and 300mm because your lens operates at both. Just set your lens to 200mm and know that if you get a 70-200, that's roughly as much reach as you'll get out of it.

repsol12 · Sep 29, 2011

Im thinking either the 70-200mm f/4L IS or the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with a 2x teleconverter might be the best option. That way Ill keep my reach (after having done the 200-300 check losing that 100mm will be detrimental for the shots i want from the only areas i can shoot at my local track) and have a superior lens to grow into as my skills increase.

The IS is able to turned off so it will be a nice addition when its appropriate. Ive watched a lot of video reviews and read a lot of reviews as well and people go back and forth over the f/4 or the f/2.8. I assume the better of the two would be the 2.8 but i honestly dont understand just what id get or give up between the two. (aside from the basic understanding that 2.8 means a wider aperature for more light to get to the sensor). except of course the $1000 price difference. :/