Think I found the lens I want, advice needed

[ScubaSteve]

OK, I recently bought a Digital Rebel XT and already have a standard zoom lens, but I would LOVE a telephoto lens and I am currently eying the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. Is there anyone who has used one who can give me input about my selection? Or could I go with a shorter lens? Thanks in advance.

(I was also wondering if it is compatible with the camera; do I need an EF-S lens instead?)

 

[Josh66]

Haven't used that lens, but yes - it's compatible with your camera. You can use EF or EF-S lenses.

For about $50 more you could get the 70-200 f/4L. You wouldn't have IS, but other than that it's a great lens. I don't think you'll notice a huge difference between 200mm & 300mm.

Here's a pretty in-depth review of the 70-300. Seems like it would be a decent choice.

There are a couple of other lenses you might want to consider if you are looking at the 70-300 IS ...

The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens is a very good choice for better image quality in this general focal length range (lose 30mm on the wide end, gain 100mm on the long end). Although not as noticebly better for sharpness as the 70-200 f/4 is, the 100-400 is still a better lens (optically and mechanically) in my opinion. It is considerably larger, heavier and more expensive.

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS Lens is in an interesting position in Canon's lineup - sharing the basic optical specs of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. Although it is 1.5" shorter, the DO actually weighs 5.4 oz more and costs significantly more. The DO is better built and has Ring USM, but is not impressive to me optically.

I prefer the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens over the 55-250, but my personal preference in this price range is for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens over the 70-300. There are a lot of happy Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens owners out there, so as always, you need to make the decision for yourself.

edit-
Not trying to talk you out of it with that quote, just thought you might like to know what some other options were.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Haven't used that lens, but yes - it's compatible with your camera. You can use EF or EF-S lenses.

For about $50 more you could get the 70-200 f/4L. You wouldn't have IS, but other than that it's a great lens. I don't think you'll notice a huge difference between 200mm & 300mm.

Here's a pretty in-depth review of the 70-300. Seems like it would be a decent choice.

edit-
Not trying to talk you out of it with that quote, just thought you might like to know what some other options were.

Thanks for the input; I was just reading reviews about the 70-200L and it seems like a pretty bad-ass lens with superb optics; however it seems a bit too conspicuous and would really enjoy image stabilization (I am one of those 'shaky hands' people and I rarely use a tripod unless I'm shooting lightning). The comments from people on Amazon reviewing both lenses seem torn in between the two (sort of like I am right now), I see many people arguing that the optics are far better on the L lens (as they should be) but after seeing sample photos from both cameras, I can't tell a difference unless it is an extremely cropped sample from a 300mm shot (right down to the pixels).

Decisions, decisions.......

 

[JustAnEngineer]

All of the photos in this album were shot with the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens under some harsh lighting conditions by a noob (me):
http://s230.photobucket.com/albums/ee120/JustAnEngineer/Zoo/

These are untouched 1936 x 1288 "Small JPEG" images straight out of my EOS 40D.

For the Otter pics, I really wished that I had not left the circular polarizer back in the car.