Telephoto lenses for Canon.. fight!

[MDesigner]

Should I get...

The fairly new Tamron 70-200mm:
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-200mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0012GLHL2

The Canon 70-200mm:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Cameras/dp/B000053HH5

(edit) Canon 55-250mm:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250mm-4-0-5-6-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B0011NVMO8

Or the Canon 70-300mm:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-6-Lens-Cameras/dp/B0007Y794O

The last one seems to be the cheapest quality lens (from what I've read), but it does have IS which is nice. The Canon 70-200mm seems good and includes a lens hood, so the price evens out nicely against the 70-300mm.

Not sure what I'd be losing out on by going for 70-200mm over 70-300mm. I'm undecided among these three lenses.. any advice? As far as what I'd be using it for, think zoo trip. Getting optically close to animals you can't really get close to physically...

 

[Rhys]

70-300 f4-5.6 IS is OK. Not brilliant but OK. I was doing birdie photos today and rarely needed more than 200mm.

70-200 f4 IS is better.

I wouldn't look at independents though.

 

[MDesigner]

I wouldn't look at independents though.

I assume by independents you mean 3rd party lenses like Tamron. Why not?

PS: The Canon 70-200mm IS wasn't an option Outside my budget, unfortunately ($1000)

 

[jg123]

I would go for the 55mm-250mm for around $300, here are some reviews

 

[MDesigner]

WOW. Thanks for the tip on that lens! The zoo photos that guy posted are pretty awesome. Plus, the 55-250mm covers me a bit better, since my only lens right now stops at 50mm.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I've used the 70-200 f/4L before on more then a few occasions, it's a stellar lens and IMO that's what you should get and not even consider a 70-300 or 55-200 f/5.6.

 

[MDesigner]

Hmm.. yeah but the 70-200mm f/4 (at the price I can afford) doesn't have IS. The 55-250mm's got IS, and I'm looking through sample shots on that link posted above... it's pretty damn good. I'm not even semi-pro, so I don't really need anything superb. If I magically do happen to go semi-pro, I can upgrade.

 

[MDesigner]

A few shots from the 55-250mm that really caught my eye...

This one here is a 100% crop:

This is the bear photo at full size, 2048px wide:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2440309932_1eaa4b0f82_o.jpg

 

[Mav]

The only issue with the 50-250 is that it's an EF-S lens and won't cover any of the higher end bodies like the 5D or 1D/1Ds lineup since they require EF lenses, not EF-S. Doesn't sound like that'd be a concern, but figured I'd point it out.

 

[Dao]

hum .. very interesting. I think I need to search and see if I can find some reviews on the new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 lens. The price of the Tamron is some what cheaper than the Canon 70-200 f2.8. Of course if the optical quality is as good as the Canon or close to it. Then it may become another popular lens. Just like the 17-50mm f2.8 lens did, lower cost with pretty good optical quality.

 

[Village Idiot]

I own a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS. It is great.

The Canon 70-200 f/4 has probably gotten me the sharpest photo to ever come out of my camera. If you can live with it's limitation of f/4, you'll be more than happy with the image quality it produces. I think it's the best zoom lens that Canon produces under $1000.

You can also go onto www.photography-on-the.net or www.fredmiranda.com and find a used one with original box and everything for about $450-$500.

 

[Dao]

Just saw the review of the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 from Dpreview.com. The optical quality seems to be pretty good. But the Tamron lens is using the DC motor, not USM or anything like that. So Autofocus is not as accurate nor fast as the Canon one.

So I guess it comes down to what type of shots. If using the lens to take some action shots like ball games. It may have issue of get a good focus photos. But if it is used for a stationary objects. It should be pretty good I think. hum ... for me, I may stay with my orginal plan of getting the 70-200mm f4L once I save up more money.

 

[Rhys]

I have the 70-300 f4-5.6. The USM AF is fast. I took a great photo of a pelican flying with it. Most of the time though I was around 200mm not 300mm. I would go for the 70-200 f4 IS. I know you cannot afford it right now. Why not save toward it?

I would post some photos but at the moment I'm not at home. My Macbook is where I do my photoprocessing but it won't take my wife's PCMCIA Verizon wireless card. My wife's Verizon card is working at 14.4kbps so uploading would be painful - even if I transferred JPEGs - lol.

 

[Buszaj]

Go for the 70-200 f/4 L. You won't regret it. Its the best choice out of them all. Even though it doesn't have IS, images are still great handheld (I use this lens). Very sharp, you'll love it. Its the best choice out of the three.

 

[asfixiate]

Without Flash how good is the 70-200 f/4L in a low lit situation?

with my 50mm/f 1.8 i was able to take pictures in nocturnal exhibit at zoo without flash. This lense can do that?