Replacement for Canon 75-300

S

speed addicted

Suspended / Banned
Messages
88
Edit My Images
Yes
I have the Canon 75-300mm at the moment, I bought it last year when I get the 500D but I don't like it.
So I'd like sharper images, faster focussing and better build quality. Not that difficult so far.
The 70-200L F4 seems to be the sharpest thing I'll get for around the £500 mark, I'd have to loose some zoom range but I think I can live with that.

Is this likely to be the best lens for the money? I take it that it'll produece better results than the 70-300 IS?
I might be able to strech to a stabilised F4 or F2.8 non IS with more overtime but I'm not sure the extra cash would be worth it for me.

So for £500 (or more with time) to take pictures of mates on motorbikes and various other wildlife what would you get?
 
It's a 500D so it's the crop sensor. I may upgrade this later on but I'll probably stick with crop sensors for some time yet.
 
70-200 f4 IS is a wonderful lens. If you can find the cash I'd really recommend that.
 
hollis_f said:
70-200 f4 IS is a wonderful lens. If you can find the cash I'd really recommend that.
Click to expand...
:agree: or the non IS for £350ish second hand. Mine doesn't get used much (tend to use 12-105 as my range), but when it does get used, it ALWAYS produces a stunning picture.

Beware though, a 70-200F4L WILL lead to wanting more expensive glass...
 
The jump from £500 to £1800 is out of reach at the moment! The F4 IS is a possibility if used.
Would the non IS F2.8 be a better bet than the IS F4?
I think the weather sealing is only on the IS models so I take it the general quality may be better?

I do expect to need a better general walkabout lens soon after this purchase, then a better macro etc...
 
speed addicted said:
Would the non IS F2.8 be a better bet than the IS F4?
Click to expand...
Only if you need f2.8 for shutter speed or creative effects. The 70-200 series are known for exceptional image quality whichever you get (the non-IS f4 is an absolute bargain).
 
If you're thinking about a 2.8 version then size and weight are also factors you should consider.
 
Get the best 70-200 u can get for your budget.

Simple as that really. Don't worry about the weight of the f2.8 either. It's not that bad IMHO
 
BTW. There are both 70 and 75 to 300 IS lenses, there is apparently a large difference in quality between them.
For me, I upgraded (but kept my 7x-300) to the 100-400L IS
I wanted to keep te length (you will loose a third going to the 70-200 remember).
Now I have used the 1.8 of the 50, and I have the the 17-55mm IS 2.8 though, I do yearn for faster glass at longer lengths, to the point of considering the 70-200 IS 2.8 myself. Having tried it out though, it wouldn't be a replacement for the way I use the 70-300 still. It is too big and conspicuous for me at the moment.

Weight wise, unless you are taking them up mountains (which I did) the 70-200 is heavier than the 75-300, but it is not unmanageable.
 
Last edited:
I upgraded from a 70-300IS to a 70-200 f4L, the difference is staggering, contrast and sharpness are greatly improved. I don't miss the IS for motorsports but it would be useful for non moving objects.
 
IanParker said:
I upgraded from a 70-300IS to a 70-200 f4L, the difference is staggering, contrast and sharpness are greatly improved. I don't miss the IS for motorsports but it would be useful for non moving objects.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what I needed to hear! I was reading some reviews that said the 70-300 IS would take similar quality shots (and it is a lot cheaper). Now the decision is much more simple.
 
speed addicted said:
Thats exactly what I needed to hear! I was reading some reviews that said the 70-300 IS would take similar quality shots (and it is a lot cheaper). Now the decision is much more simple.
Click to expand...

the 70-200 of any variations simply destroys the 70-300 any day of the week + one.

Seriously get one whichever suits your max budget weather its £500 or £1800 get the best your budget can buy and you will not regret it!
 
speed addicted said:
Thats exactly what I needed to hear! I was reading some reviews that said the 70-300 IS would take similar quality shots (and it is a lot cheaper). Now the decision is much more simple.
Click to expand...

I also forgot to say, the 70 -300 loses sharpness above 200mm anyway, so an interpolated upsized crop from the 70-200 will be sharper than the 70-300 at 300mm anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top