Within a $700 budget range, your options would be:.
70-300 f4-5.6IS70-200 f4LSigma 70-200 f2.8.
I've used both of the Canon lenses before. The 70-200 f4 has better build quality and faster focusing than the 70-300 - however, the image quality is nearly the same, and with IS the real-world image quality of the 70-300 far exceeds that of the 70-200..
I've never used the 70-200 personally, but it's supposed to be a great lens, and f2.8 will get you an extra stop or two for faster shutter speeds. Focusing is probably not as great as Canon's USM, but Sigma's HSM is no slouch either..
I think, if you've never ever used a telephoto before (judging by you only having a kit lens), I think the 70-300 is the way to go. It's a far more versatile lens, and IS really helps out in low light and at 300mm...
Indoor or outdoor? Day or night?.
I think the 70-300 Sigma with APO in the name is the best value..
But 300mm is a trickly focal length, and hard to find a high quality lens, especially wide open, at a good price..
BAK..
I'd recommend a 300L f/4.0. You can get them with IS (new or used) or without (used). The price might be a little more than $700 but not drastic. You didn't specify enough to rule that one out so I think for 300mm it's the best choice for that approximate budget...
Lanky wrote:.
With a budget of $700 US ( maby a bit extra), What lens would yourecommend with at least a 300mm focal length for sports?.
Somebody already mentioned the one I would recommend, the old 300mm f/4L. Right in your budget range..
But if you want a zoom how about the Canon 100-300/5.6 USM? Fast focusing, affordable, good enough for bright outdoor shots..
Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..
Nickleback wrote:.
But if you want a zoom how about the Canon 100-300/5.6 USM? Fastfocusing, affordable, good enough for bright outdoor shots..
That reminded me that there is also an old 100-300 L that gets good reviews for image quality but probably wouldn't be good for sports as I don't think it has USM and it's also a 5.6 through the range so it's slow in all regards. It is also well out of support I believe..
I do believe they can be had cheaply though if you check KEH...
GearCollector wrote:.
That reminded me that there is also an old 100-300 L that gets goodreviews for image quality but probably wouldn't be good for sports asI don't think it has USM and it's also a 5.6 through the range soit's slow in all regards..
The focusing is way too slow, the zoom creeps, and the build isn't so good either. Otherwise it's a great lens!.
That explains why it is an L but sells for around $300....
Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..
The Canon 300mm f4 lens costs 50% more than the budget, according to my price list..
BAK..
I've used both of the Canon lenses before. The 70-200 f4 has betterbuild quality and faster focusing than the 70-300 - however, theimage quality is nearly the same, and with IS the real-world imagequality of the 70-300 far exceeds that of the 70-200..
Really????!!.
Can I smoke what youre smoking, please?.
The 70-300 mm IS is a great lens, no doubt but you must be insane if you think it's IQ " far exceeds" the 70-200 mm. thanks for the giggle .
Time flies like an arrow...fruit flies like a bannana.....
BAK wrote:.
The Canon 300mm f4 lens costs 50% more than the budget, according tomy price list..
Does your price list include a used 300mm f/4 L non-IS, i.e. the old version? That should be around $700 to $800, depending on condition of course..
Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..
Bluefox9er wrote:.
I've used both of the Canon lenses before. The 70-200 f4 has betterbuild quality and faster focusing than the 70-300 - however, theimage quality is nearly the same, and with IS the real-world imagequality of the 70-300 far exceeds that of the 70-200..
Really????!!.
Can I smoke what youre smoking, please?the 70-300 mm IS is a great lens, no doubt but you must be insane ifyou think it's IQ " far exceeds" the 70-200 mm. thanks for the giggle.
Perhaps I should have articulated this a lot more. I was stating that the inclusion of image stabilization alone improves the quality of images from the 70-300 orders of magnitude over the 70-200. When you're maxed out at ISO3200 and shooting wide open at 200mm (320mm effective), the 3 stops that IS gets you is going to be the difference between a sharp picture with the 70-300IS, and a blurry mess with the 70-200 f4...
Nathan Yan wrote:.
Bluefox9er wrote:.
I've used both of the Canon lenses before. The 70-200 f4 has betterbuild quality and faster focusing than the 70-300 - however, theimage quality is nearly the same, and with IS the real-world imagequality of the 70-300 far exceeds that of the 70-200..
Really????!!.
Can I smoke what youre smoking, please?the 70-300 mm IS is a great lens, no doubt but you must be insane ifyou think it's IQ " far exceeds" the 70-200 mm. thanks for the giggle.
Perhaps I should have articulated this a lot more. I was statingthat the inclusion of image stabilization alone improves the qualityof images from the 70-300 orders of magnitude over the 70-200. Whenyou're maxed out at ISO3200 and shooting wide open at 200mm (320mmeffective), the 3 stops that IS gets you is going to be thedifference between a sharp picture with the 70-300IS, and a blurrymess with the 70-200 f4..
If thats the case, by your reasoning, the 90-300 mm IQ would be comparable 70-200 mm F4 L?? or maybe the 73-300 mm that you can pick up for $100..because that dosnt have IS would it's IQ be ona par with the 70-200 mm F4?!!!!.
Or how about the 28-135...that has IS, so does that have an IQ that "greatly exceeds" the IQ of the 70-200 mm F4??.
Maybe you sould either shoot with the 70-200 mm F4 L series or read a review about it before posting such nonsense!!Time flies like an arrow...fruit flies like a bannana.....
Bluefox9er wrote:.
Nathan Yan wrote:.
Bluefox9er wrote:.
I've used both of the Canon lenses before. The 70-200 f4 has betterbuild quality and faster focusing than the 70-300 - however, theimage quality is nearly the same, and with IS the real-world imagequality of the 70-300 far exceeds that of the 70-200..
Really????!!.
Can I smoke what youre smoking, please?the 70-300 mm IS is a great lens, no doubt but you must be insane ifyou think it's IQ " far exceeds" the 70-200 mm. thanks for the giggle.
Perhaps I should have articulated this a lot more. I was statingthat the inclusion of image stabilization alone improves the qualityof images from the 70-300 orders of magnitude over the 70-200. Whenyou're maxed out at ISO3200 and shooting wide open at 200mm (320mmeffective), the 3 stops that IS gets you is going to be thedifference between a sharp picture with the 70-300IS, and a blurrymess with the 70-200 f4..
If thats the case, by your reasoning, the 90-300 mm IQ would becomparable 70-200 mm F4 L?? or maybe the 73-300 mm that you can pickup for $100..because that dosnt have IS would it's IQ be ona parwith the 70-200 mm F4?!!!!.
Or how about the 28-135...that has IS, so does that have an IQ that"greatly exceeds" the IQ of the 70-200 mm F4??.
Maybe you sould either shoot with the 70-200 mm F4 L series or read areview about it before posting such nonsense!!Time flies like an arrow...fruit flies like a bannana....
I have owned the 70-200 f4 before, as well as the 70-300, and now the 70-200 f2.8IS. They're all great lenses, and when you want to mount all three of them on a tripod and shoot test charts inside a studio, sure, the 70-200 f4 is marginally sharper. But when you get out in the real world, hand-holding your camera, whatever marginal sharpness differences are going to be destroyed by the complete blur you get with non-IS lenses..
You're taking my point out of context. I never said all IS lenses were the same, nor did I say all non-IS lenses were the same. I'm saying that the benefit of IS alone is, for low-light photography, a far more important consideration than lens sharpness...
Nathan Yan wrote:.
Bluefox9er wrote:.
Nathan Yan wrote:.
Bluefox9er wrote:.
I've used both of the Canon lenses before. The 70-200 f4 has betterbuild quality and faster focusing than the 70-300 - however, theimage quality is nearly the same, and with IS the real-world imagequality of the 70-300 far exceeds that of the 70-200..
Really????!!.
Can I smoke what youre smoking, please?the 70-300 mm IS is a great lens, no doubt but you must be insane ifyou think it's IQ " far exceeds" the 70-200 mm. thanks for the giggle.
Perhaps I should have articulated this a lot more. I was statingthat the inclusion of image stabilization alone improves the qualityof images from the 70-300 orders of magnitude over the 70-200. Whenyou're maxed out at ISO3200 and shooting wide open at 200mm (320mmeffective), the 3 stops that IS gets you is going to be thedifference between a sharp picture with the 70-300IS, and a blurrymess with the 70-200 f4..
If thats the case, by your reasoning, the 90-300 mm IQ would becomparable 70-200 mm F4 L?? or maybe the 73-300 mm that you can pickup for $100..because that dosnt have IS would it's IQ be ona parwith the 70-200 mm F4?!!!!.
Or how about the 28-135...that has IS, so does that have an IQ that"greatly exceeds" the IQ of the 70-200 mm F4??.
Maybe you sould either shoot with the 70-200 mm F4 L series or read areview about it before posting such nonsense!!Time flies like an arrow...fruit flies like a bannana....
I have owned the 70-200 f4 before, as well as the 70-300, and now the70-200 f2.8IS. They're all great lenses, and when you want to mountall three of them on a tripod and shoot test charts inside a studio,sure, the 70-200 f4 is marginally sharper. But when you get out inthe real world, hand-holding your camera, whatever marginal sharpnessdifferences are going to be destroyed by the complete blur you getwith non-IS lenses..
You're taking my point out of context. I never said all IS lenseswere the same, nor did I say all non-IS lenses were the same. I'msaying that the benefit of IS alone is, for low-light photography, afar more important consideration than lens sharpness..
Youre saying that the 70-300 mm with IS has an IQ which greatly exceeds the IQ of the 70-200 mm F4 L lens..IS or not, that statement is just simply complete and utter nonsense...the IQ on the 70-200 mm is ***considerably** better than the 70-300 mm IS lens on every level..
Time flies like an arrow...fruit flies like a bannana.....
Sigma 50-500mm (Bigma), Sigma 170-500mm, Sigma 70-300mm APO?.
Http://www.stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com..
Bluefox9er wrote:.
Youre saying that the 70-300 mm with IS has an IQ which greatlyexceeds the IQ of the 70-200 mm F4 L lens..IS or not, that statementis just simply complete and utter nonsense...the IQ on the 70-200 mmis ***considerably** better than the 70-300 mm IS lens on every level..
Here is what I mean. I maxed out the aperture on both lenses and had my ISO maxed out to ISO3200. Was still getting less than 1/20s per shot, at 200mm, which is very difficult to hand hold, as you may know. Which gave me the better picture?.
70-300IS.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
70-200 f4.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..
Nathan Yan wrote:.
Bluefox9er wrote:.
Youre saying that the 70-300 mm with IS has an IQ which greatlyexceeds the IQ of the 70-200 mm F4 L lens..IS or not, that statementis just simply complete and utter nonsense...the IQ on the 70-200 mmis ***considerably** better than the 70-300 mm IS lens on every level..
Here is what I mean. I maxed out the aperture on both lenses and hadmy ISO maxed out to ISO3200. Was still getting less than 1/20s pershot, at 200mm, which is very difficult to hand hold, as you mayknow. Which gave me the better picture?.
70-300IS.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
70-200 f4.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Be nice to see what they would look like if you had IS turned 'off'....or compared it with the 70-200 F4 L with IS....
Anyone owning a non IS lens is highly unlikey to shoot handheld at 1/20s...why dont you compare with wide open aperture on 200 mm with a high shutter speed and see which is the better picture??Time flies like an arrow...fruit flies like a bannana.....
Nathan Yan wrote:.
Here is what I mean..
Nathan, in common with many and probably most readers I knew what you meant, but you were replying to someone who (one assumes from the opening question) wouldn't necessarily have understood this:.
With IS the real-world imagequality of the 70-300 far exceeds that of the 70-200..
That statement, strictly speaking, is incorrect, and your examples illustrate the point - the difference between them is camera shake, not image quality. If we follow your procedure, the 70-300 IS has better image quality than every non-IS lens ever made. Which is clearly absurd..
I knew what you meant, you knew what you meant, and bluefox9er knows perfectly well what you meant. But you didn't write what you meant...
Lanky wrote:.
From what I have gathered from other postsI need fast AF, low as possible F-stop, IS not important (will use atripod for landscapes etc.)?.
If you want a dedicated sports lens then yes, all that is good advice. The 300 f/4L, as others have suggested, would be a great purchase and although I don't know US prices I would have thought you should be able to find one in your price range. The one reservation I would have, though, is that you probably need a zoom because there is no way to put all your subjects at the right distance for a 300 mm lens (!) and you have no other lenses to fill the gap (yet!).
You definitely need to decide whether versatility is a factor in your purchase, because that is one thing the 300/4 won't give you - and the 70-300 IS would. Yes, to a certain extent it is Jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none but sometimes that is what is needed..
Or, looking ahead, a 70-200 f/4L *and* a 300/4L would a superb partnership, so buying one of those now and the other at a later date could be the way to go. Only you can decide.....
Steve Balcombe wrote:.
Or, looking ahead, a 70-200 f/4L *and* a 300/4L would a superbpartnership.
Or, to muddy the waters further, if you like the possibility of the 70-200 f/4 + 300mm f/4, there's the Sigma 100-300mm f/4. This gives you essentially both of the above-mentioned L lenses in one package (other than <100mm). Might be the perfect lens for your situation, except that it's about 50% above your budget..
Only you can decide....
Seconded..
Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..
Nickleback wrote:.
... it's about 50% above your budget..
Oddly enough, that is exactly what I normally find myself paying...