A little guidance please.....

[b.latiolais]

So my wife's Birthday is coming up and she is always stating that she needs a zoom lense for her camera. I bought her this Canon Rebel something or other a couple of years ago and she really likes it other than the far away shots, hence the zoom lense. Just curious as to what you all would suggest for a good lense. I think the camera may be an XTI? Anyways, I want to buy her something good enough to be able to zoom in for when my little boy plays sports and also something good enough that if I take it to the ranch I can zoom in on potential targets. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

If I need to provide more info. on the camera itself just let me know and I'll get the exact specs.

Thanks.

[justhrowit]

What is your budget? Given my budget these days, THIS is the lens I want. Possibilities are endless, IMO, just depends on what you can or want to spend.

J

[b.latiolais]

What is your budget? Given my budget these days, THIS is the lens I want. Possibilities are endless, IMO, just depends on what you can or want to spend.

J

I have not set myself to a budget, I wouldn't mind spending that much on the lense you suggested. I just want to make sure I get my money's worth. I noticed the same lense but with "DO" (Diffractive Optics?) added to it and it was like $1200.00. This is why I am asking the question. I don't really know how much a difference the DO makes? Would I (an untrained eye) even notice the difference in the pictures between the two lenses?

Thanks for the info. by the way.

[justhrowit]

I have not set myself to a budget, I wouldn't mind spending that much on the lense you suggested. I just want to make sure I get my money's worth. I noticed the same lense but with "DO" (Diffractive Optics?) added to it and it was like $1200.00. This is why I am asking the question. I don't really know how much a difference the DO makes? Would I (an untrained eye) even notice the difference in the pictures between the two lenses?

Thanks for the info. by the way.

You've gone outside my realm of knowledge, sorry!

[b.latiolais]

You've gone outside my realm of knowledge, sorry!

Way outside of mine as well. That's why I need some guidance. I have no idea what I am doing.

[TexaswBOWhunter]

I have not had any dealing with the DO lens either.... I do however, have the lens mentioned in the previos post and it has taken some good pic's....

Here are a couple pics with that lens (70-300 IS USM)...











But I was limited by my budget at the time, my next telephoto will be THIS one.

I will be buying all "L" lens from now on, the two lens' I bought got me started and I am getting some good photos with them but they are not "L" quality... If you can afford it go with the "L" lens, IMO....

[tommy1005]

from what I've read the DO lens will require more post-processing than the normal lens. In my opinion, it is not worth it. You can always rent a couple and try them out for yourself before you plunk down the cash. You could also go with one of the 70-200 options, which gives you the "L" quality lens. A great lens that is affordable is the 70-200 f/4 without IS for $600-$700. Above that you can get the 70-200 f/4 IS or the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS for $1200-$1400. Another advantage of the L lenses is that they hold their value extremely well.

The following is from lensrentals.com about the 70-300 DO.
For a long time, the 70-300 DO lens was the only high quality Canon zoom in this range. It still has several advantages, being much more compact (although a bit heavier and more expensive) than the standard 70-300 IS zoom lens that we also carry. It also has a nonrotating front element, an advantage when a polarizer is needed. There are pages of arguments on the internet over which is best – it’s one of those discussions that no one has the answer to, including us.

Roger’s take: I personally prefer the longer but lighter 70-300 IS to the shorter and heavier 70-300 DO IS. If you shoot RAW and don’t mind a little postprocessing to up the contrast you’ll be very happy with DO pictures. If you want to shoot jpgs and don’t want to sweat the images in Photoshop, you’ll probably prefer the standard 70-300 IS.

[b.latiolais]

I have not had any dealing with the DO lens either.... I do however, have the lens mentioned in the previos post and it has taken some good pic's....

But I was limited by my budget at the time, my next telephoto will be THIS one.

I will be buying all "L" lens from now on, the two lens' I bought got me started and I am getting some good photos with them but they are not "L" quality... If you can afford it go with the "L" lens, IMO....

What does the "L" mean? Why is this lens so much better? And also, do you think this would be a neccessity for the average "soccer mom's" needs? Can you show me a couple of pics you've taken with your current lens?

[b.latiolais]

Thanks Tommy. I was typing as you posted. Good info.

[justhrowit]

Great photos TexaswBOWhunter. I'm sold on that lens for sure! I'd love to be able to afford an L lens.... at this point, I can't even afford the 70-300

J

[Shane]

Canon's L lenses are their top of the line glass. Their regular lenses are plenty good, but the Ls are better. The main drawback to the 70-300mm mentioned above is that at 300mm focal length, the largest aperture is f/5.6. At nighttime football games and low light wildlife situations that won't allow enough light in to get you shutter speeds fast enough to avoid blur. You really need at least f/4, with f/2.8 being much better. If you can shoot 1/60th second at f/5.6, you can shoot 1/250th second at f/2.8 - huge difference. Huge difference in price too, unfortunately. An f/2.8 lens isn't cheap.

The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L, either with IS (Image Stabilization) or without, would be a good choice especially if you can be on the sidelines taking pics.

[TexaswBOWhunter]

Canon's L lenses are their top of the line glass. Their regular lenses are plenty good, but the Ls are better. The main drawback to the 70-300mm mentioned above is that at 300mm focal length, the largest aperture is f/5.6. At nighttime football games and low light wildlife situations that won't allow enough light in to get you shutter speeds fast enough to avoid blur. You really need at least f/4, with f/2.8 being much better. If you can shoot 1/60th second at f/5.6, you can shoot 1/250th second at f/2.8 - huge difference. Huge difference in price too, unfortunately. An f/2.8 lens isn't cheap.

The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L, either with IS (Image Stabilization) or without, would be a good choice especially if you can be on the sidelines taking pics.

The statement I highlighted from Shane is exactly why I said the 70-200 f/2.8L will be my next lens purchase

With the 70-300 IS USM lens it has to be on a tripod and I have to use a wireless shutter to get any decent low light pic's and at that they are not what I consider to be good...