Recently got a 350D with the kit lens but will be looking to get a zoom lens to use for motorsport pics etc.

What would be a reasonable lens to get, I gather the Canon 70-200mm F4 L wouldn't be a bad choice but are there any other lenses to consider that are a bit cheaper?

Thanks for any info :)

Something like a Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 DG for around £160. I have a Nikon equivelent for my D70 (70-300 F4-5.6 ED) it's not a patch on my 70-200 F2.8 VR but at £1000 less it's a great lens....

I've been looking at the same for my 20d and am thinking of the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM which you can get for £370 at Warehouse Express.

How would the Canon EF 90-300mm f4.5-5.6 compare to the Sigma ?

Available off a well known auction site for £150 delivered.

There is a voucher which expires shortly - £ 70 off a 70-200 f4 L

I use a Sigma 70-300 and its a good starting point. I will be upgrading mine to something better, but its excellent value for money.

Anyone got/used a Canon EF 75-300mm f4.0-5.6 III USM lens? These are £169 on Warehouse............ any good or are they a bit "cheap and cheerful" so to speak?

How would the EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens compare to the Canon 70-200mm F4 L? I have a £70 voucher off the 70-200 F4 L but the 70-300mm IS would still be cheaper even after the money off. Anyone used both lenses and been able to compare??

I've got the older 75-300mm IS lens, and having seen the results from the 70-200mm F4 L it's streets ahead :thumb:

Reviews of 70-200 f4 L
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&cat=27&page=2
overall rated 9.5 out of 10

Reviews of 75-300mm f4-f5.6 USM III
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=18&sort=7&cat=27&page=2
rated 5.3 out of 10

70-300 IS USM
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294&sort=7&cat=27&page=3
rated 9.2 out of 10

Out of the three I'd want the 70-200 f4 L

I have the Canon 75-300mm f4-f5.6 USM II which isn't the newest version but was a bargain second hand and is a bargain new! It's a good 'cheap' lens for motorsport use and some all the pictures here were taken with it (except for the Paddock, that was with the 18-55mm Kit Lens):

http://www.mdracing.co.uk/250605.asp

Note that this was my first 'outing' with the lens and so I hadn't got used to capturing motion with the camera, but you get the idea of the range and quality of the lens for the price :)

Now, if you've got the £££ you simply can't beat the Canon L range of lens so if you can afford it get it... generally spend as much as you can afford on lens as it makes the world of difference!

Price breakdown for those 3 from www.warehouseexpress.co.uk are:

£169 - EF75-300mm f4.0-5.6 III USM (58mm)
£369 - EF70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
£478 - EF70-200mm f4.0 LUSM (67mm)

ONe other issue is range, at many tracks you can't get that close to the circuit so you may find that extra 100mm of range comes in handy :)

Thanks for the info guys.

Hmmm decisions decisions!! Looks like it’s between the 70-200mm L and 70-300mm IS then.

Is the 70-200mm quite big/bulky to carry about? im no pro as only just got my 1st DSLR camera but would like to get a zoom lens some time soon and don't want to make too many mistakes (i.e. get a cheap one only to upgrade it a little further on down the line).

I could be pushed towards the 70-300mm IS as the £70 voucher expires in a week or so for the 200mm F4 L, which would then make it around £100 more than the 300mm IS.

How does the 70-200mm L cope in low light, such as on one of our many dull overcast days we get here in the jolly old UK, as I have read a few comments on it struggling in low light?

You're right about the choices, and the good thing is that both lenses you're looking at are very good indeed. In terms of image quality, the 70-200mm is better, but you'll have to look damn hard. The upside of the 70-300mm is the extra reach, IS, and still very good image quality :)

The 70-200mm f/4 L is an excellent lens. Widely regarded as one of Canon's best, and at a very good price, with or without cash-back. I don't know what the current supply situation is, but these lenses were out of stock a month or two ago, due to the success of Canon's cash-back promo so you will be lucky to get one before the discount deadline.

I had one for a day or two, but swapped it for a 70-300mm IS DO. I wanted the extra reach and IS, but the new 70-300mm IS that you're looking at was not avialbale at the time. I'd have gone for that, I think. The DO lens is great, but very pricey.

I don't understand what you mean by the 70-200mm f/4 L struggling in low light. Sounds like bollox to me. On the other hand, the IS lens has an undoubted advantage in low light, but maybe not for motorsport! Confused? If so, I'll explain.

But if you want my choice, it would be the more versatile 70-300mm IS lens everytime. You will need some very good reasons not to go for this lens. It's a belter :D

Richard.

PS If you are bored and want to read tons of stuff about these lenses, log on to the Canon Lens Forum at www.dpreview.com and search ;)

I've got the 70-200 f4L and I love it to bits. To all intents, the NEW 70-300 IS lens is a cracker, for the money.

Its cheaper as well, has more reach is probably lighter and will be more useable to a new photographer with the IS.

Bear in mind, however, that for panning shots you may have the IS switched off.

Plus points for the 70-200L

Fantastic build
Fixed length on zoom and internal focusing with full time manual override.
End element does not move which makes use of polarising filters much easier
Stunning colour and contrast
extremely fast autofocus.
very sharp images
You'll get back most of what you paid for it if you decide to sell


Plus points for the 70-300 IS

An extra 100mm
Image stabilisation
Lighter weight
Also very sharp images (as reported)
lower cost

Hand held, the 70-200 is not always fast enough for low light, but then this was taken in crap light at a ridiculously low shutter speed (1/60th at 200mm)but with a monopod:-

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/Diablo/IMG_1065adjusted.jpg

This was also at a comparatively low speed in not the best light (again with monopod)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/Diablo/IMG_0060.jpg

and this one hand held in good light

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0803/Diablo/IMG_0594.jpg

I like the look of the 70-200mm but I think I'm going to go for the 70-300mm because of the extra reach. I'll be using it for hoildays (safaris etc) also. Now if money were no object, the 70-200mm 2.8L IS USM (coupled with a teleconverter for those longer shots) would be the way to go.

I have the 70-200mm f/4 and think its a cracking lens , not keen on the colour though :D .But I think if I where buying again I would go for the 70-300mm IS , Its getting some cracking reviews plus the IS and extra 100mm make it a bargain , trouble is its pushing the price of the 70-200mm f/4 down now :mad:
here some more pics from the f/4 anyway ;)

*edit*
forgot to add you dont get a nice leather pouch and a lens hood with the 70-300 IS (the hood will be at least £20.00 extra )
just to confuse the issue even more :wonder::D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/kbsub/IMG_0265.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/kbsub/yorkshire%20air%20show/IMG_0059.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/kbsub/lotherton%20deer/IMG_0037-01.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/kbsub/IMG_0265.jpg


Love that shot! :D

I had the 70-300 IS USM on my 20D and found it to hunt very slowly on auto focus. Manual was ok, but at full zoom the pictures came out very soft.

The 70-200 with a 1.4x extender is a better option.

Dan

Another lens that you should consider - although it's a bit more expensive: ;)

Sigma 100-300 f4 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=103&sort=7&cat=37&page=1)

Available for £499 here (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-SIGMA-EF-100-300mm-100-300-F4-EX-APO-IF-4-CANON-EOS_W0QQitemZ7573595932QQcategoryZ4687QQssPageName ZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

This lens is as sharp as the Canon 70-200 f4, but with more range - don't let the fact that it's not a Canon L put you off. If I didn't have my 100-400L, I'd happily get this :)

I have been looking on www.dpreview.com, this is where I found a few people talking about the 70-200mm F4 L not liking low light conditions much??

DIABLO - However your pics look great, low light or not!

This could well come down to price, well for me anyway. The only other thing I am considering is the actual size/weight of the 70-200mm F4 L, is it much bigger than the 70-300mm IS?

Once again thanks for all your info :)

DARYL - Thanks for the suggestion of the Sigma, but it's a bit more than what I would like to be spending.

Canon 100-300 USM would be where my money went........ superior optics to the baseline USM Tele-Zooms and not outrageous price either.

http://www.mdracing.co.uk/250605.asp

:)

nice pix there, looking at mine throughout the season at Combe we must of stood next to eachother:)

A real shame the special GT's won't be there next year because of the NIMBY'S:rolleyes:

Another lens that you should consider - although it's a bit more expensive: ;)

Sigma 100-300 f4 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=103&sort=7&cat=37&page=1)

Available for £499 here (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-SIGMA-EF-100-300mm-100-300-F4-EX-APO-IF-4-CANON-EOS_W0QQitemZ7573595932QQcategoryZ4687QQssPageName ZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

This lens is as sharp as the Canon 70-200 f4, but with more range - don't let the fact that it's not a Canon L put you off. If I didn't have my 100-400L, I'd happily get this :)

Another vote for the Sigma 100-300 F4. Use this on my Nikon.