| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/13/2007 10:39:14 AM · #1 |
OK so I have an XTi and love it. I'll be buying a lens tonight. I need a good zoom for the honeymoon. I've tried and am completely won over to IS/ USM lenses.
So there are two lenses that seem very similar. The prices do not.
There is a 75-300 IS/USM Canon EX lens for $189 and a 70-300 IS/USM Canon EX lens that runs $550.
Both are the same speed (F4-5.6). So what's the big difference? Please no one say 5mm.
I've posted previously trying to get to the bottom of the APS-C compact sensor in the XTi. The idea I got then (possibly wrong) was that the XTi can take EX lenses as well as EX-S lenses -- but the latter are made especially for the more compact sensor. Am I to assume then that when an XTi uses an EX lens, it's essentially getting the inner most range of the lens? I ask this because on a review site several folks gave me, the cheaper lenses were mainly criticized for a degredation in the periphery of the image in the higher-end of the zoom range. Zoom out all the way? Get fuzziness on the edges. However, if the APS-C sensor is sampling mainly from the center of the projected image from the lens, it sounds like that would be less of an impact. Please correct the misperception.
Thanks! |
|
|
|
06/13/2007 10:42:30 AM · #2 |
| One amendment - Not EX Series lenses, but EF series. My bad. But the rest of the question stands. Why would I pay that much more for the other lens? What makes it worth it? |
|
|
|
06/13/2007 10:44:44 AM · #3 |
I think you might be mistaken on the 75-300 IS for $189. I know the 70-300 IS for $550 is accurate ,but not the other one. You will not buy an IS lens for under $200 unless is a scam or broken.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2007 10:46:47 AM · #4 |
| The 28-135mm though not mentioned is likely better for what you want. |
|
|
|
06/13/2007 10:46:51 AM · #5 |
With lenses, you are going to get what you pay for and this situation is no different. The 75-300 IS is an old lens with outdated optical and IS technologies. The 70-300 IS is going to be worlds better than the other one. The XTi's sensor does take advantage of the center sweet spot on lenses but if the center sucks, it doesn't matter anyway. This is why you see quite a few people with full frame and pro Canon cameras with L series lenses. They are generally much sharper on the corners than consumer ones. And hey, you get 5 extra mm on the wide end. :)
|
|
|
|
06/13/2007 10:47:03 AM · #6 |
I think you might be mistaken, the $189 one doesn't have IS.
Also check out the L glass for $579.
70-200 F4
Doesn't have IS, but it does have the image quality.
BTW, my search is at BH Photo. I buy all my stuff there. Good reputable place.
edit: Added my bhphoto search.
Message edited by author 2007-06-13 14:48:25. |
|
|
|
06/13/2007 10:50:22 AM · #7 |
There was an old 75-300mm IS lens, but that was replaced with the 70-300mm IS. If you found one for $189, it's probably used.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2007 10:51:49 AM · #8 |
|
|
|
06/13/2007 10:55:49 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by GlasMenagerie:
So what's the big difference? |
The lens has been improved in a number of ways. The most significant change is a redesign of the optical construction which now features a UD element - something that we usually only see in Canon L grade lenses.
(taken from here) |
|
|
|
06/13/2007 10:58:04 AM · #10 |
Stay away from the old 75-300 lens (any version). they are all quite unsharp at the long end.
I second the 70-200/4 in this range. Even though it does not have IS, it is one of the finest 70-200 zooms in existence. I don't know much about the 70-300IS, but what I see seems relatively positive. |
|
|
|
06/13/2007 10:59:38 AM · #11 |
I would suggest the 70-200 f/4L as well, I'll be buying one myself in the next week or so. The 70-300 IS is not as sharp and also has a rotating front element and cheaper build. It all comes down to how much is the IS worth to you?
|
|
|
|
06/13/2007 11:02:00 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Stay away from the old 75-300 lens (any version). they are all quite unsharp at the long end.
I second the 70-200/4 in this range. Even though it does not have IS, it is one of the finest 70-200 zooms in existence. I don't know much about the 70-300IS, but what I see seems relatively positive. |
I had this 75-300 lens, I must say I 100% agree with kirbic. I hates every minute of using it as it was very soft and hardly gave decent photos. I would 3rd the 70-200 f4. I ended up replacing this lens being so dis satisfied with it for a 70-200mm f2.8 IS and have been happy ever since.
Rich |
|
|
|
06/13/2007 02:06:11 PM · #13 |
Interesting replies.
First & Foremost, this was from a "digital photography sourcebook" from B&H -- I've used for much of my other purchases. Turns out the "IS" in the sourcebook for the $189 model was a misprint. It has USM (I have to wonder why) but no IS.
Anyway, yes, I'm looking for a 70-200mm equivalent. Though I'm not very fond of it, I have the 18-55mm lens that came with the camera. I would rather get a new lens in something I don't have than a new lens that replaces what I've already got.
I'm intrigued. I may have to look at the brighter 70-200's. Of course, if I do consider a lens without IS I will have to take a look at Tamron/Tokina/Sigma. Excellent help! Greatly appreciated!
|
|
|
|
06/13/2007 02:15:03 PM · #14 |
I have both the 75-300 and the 70-300. They are leagues apart in sharpness and in focusing speed. If you want about 50% of your shots to come out okay but only when downsized to 640px, go for the cheap one. If you want to print up to 16X20 with at least 75% catch rate (both % are dependent on your lighting), go with the the 70-300.
Its like comparing a stripped down Ford Escort to a mustang. The escort will get you there, but the mustang will get you there faster and in style with a better ride. Course, the 70-200 F4 L is more like a corvette, with the 70-200 F2.8 IS being a mazarati.
Don't waste your money on the 75-300. Its really not worth it. |
|
|
|
06/13/2007 02:18:35 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by GlasMenagerie:
Interesting replies.
First & Foremost, this was from a "digital photography sourcebook" from B&H -- I've used for much of my other purchases. Turns out the "IS" in the sourcebook for the $189 model was a misprint. It has USM (I have to wonder why) but no IS.
Anyway, yes, I'm looking for a 70-200mm equivalent. Though I'm not very fond of it, I have the 18-55mm lens that came with the camera. I would rather get a new lens in something I don't have than a new lens that replaces what I've already got.
I'm intrigued. I may have to look at the brighter 70-200's. Of course, if I do consider a lens without IS I will have to take a look at Tamron/Tokina/Sigma. Excellent help! Greatly appreciated! |
OMG Tim, I had thought you fell off the face of the earth!! Great to see you back!! |
|
|
|
06/13/2007 07:09:25 PM · #16 |
:) Thanks! Have almost no budget but a honeymoon to photograph. I met a great girl who works on the Hill, and we're going to wed next week. It will be a great trek through Canada & the coast of Maine. Therefore, I'm a little stuck. One just can't photograph whales & balloon rides with a 18-55mm lens ya know?
How's things been? I'm hoping post-wedding to contribute a bit more, but I wish the old rules were in place!
Oh - and what are *your* thoughts on your 75-300?
Message edited by author 2007-06-13 23:10:17. |
|
