Hello all, I currently own the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM (plus a 24mm 2.8 & 50 mm 1.8). I’m mainly shooting landscapes and nature (usually Velvia) and enjoy shooting a subject with all my lenses. I really like the additional focal length the zoom offers, however trying to get sharp 10 * 12 prints is difficult. Perhaps it’s me, does anyone get good enlargement results with this lens? I would really like a sharp zoom but can not afford the 70–200 2.8L. Can any one suggest some alternate lenses which do not cost as much but will be sharper in this focal range. Regards Jason.

-- Jason Eadie (jason_eadie@hotmail.com), June 05, 2001

Answers

Jason you might be interested in this review site on the Sigma 70-200EX HSM,http://www.photographyREVIEW.com/reviews/35mm_zoom_lenses/product_ 4739.asp

-- Dennis Connell (dmconnell@charter.net), June 05, 2001.

The obvious answer is the 70-200/4L. Currently (with the $100 rebate) about 1/2 the price of the 70-200/2.8L.

If you don't have a sturdy tripod, get one first or the money spent on a better lens will be wasted.

The 75-300 is, in fact, quite sharp in the 70-200 range. It gets soft when you zoom all the way out to 300mm. 10x12 prints taken at the shorter end of the range should be sharp.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), June 05, 2001.

I'd have to agree with with Bob. I went a different route and got the 200mm f2.8 L USM II, I know it's not the zoom, but it is still f2.8 and a prime lens.

No regrets at all, the 200 f2.8 is a nice lens, but currently you can get the 70-200 f4 L for about $100 bucks less thanks to the rebate.

-- SR (ratzlaff@ticnet.com), June 05, 2001.

Hi Guys, once again I am stoked this forum is here. Canon Australia does not list the 70-200 f4L on their site, but after checking, it is available in store for $Aus 1600 (about $aus0.50 to $us1.0). I'm going to have to re-evaluate my current lens within this range. Perhaps I should be holding onto it and saving for the 300 f4. Hmmmmm, back to the drawing board. I do have a great Manfroto tripod (which I had to save for) it was the only brand I could stand up straight behind (I'm 6'6") so it was well worth the money. Thanks for taking the time to share your experience with me. Regards Jason.

-- Jason Eadie (jason_eadie@hotmail.com), June 06, 2001.

The 300/4L is an excellent lens. I have both the 75-300 and the 300/4 and there's no doubt that the 300/4L is a lot sharper than the zoom at 300mm. I also recently picked up a 70-200/4L (about $US 560 after the rebate). It's very sharp, in fact at 135mm it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever tested, but the 75-300 zoom isn't bad at the short end either.

If you're really interested in 300mm you won't go wrong with the 300/4L. It will give you more improvement at 300mm than the 70-200/4L will give you at shorter focal lengths.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), June 06, 2001.

A used Canon 80-200 f/2.8L might also be an option (older version of the 70-200, $500 or so used). I bought a Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 (about $300 used), much better than the Canon 70-300 and 100-300, but not as good as the Canon 70-200s.

-- Steven Fisher (srf@srf.com), June 06, 2001.

I second the used 80-200mm 2.8L recomendation. I love mine. Good shopping can get you one aroun $600

-- Jim rodda (jim5618@hotmail.com), June 08, 2001.

If you don't need f2.8, the 70-200/4L is smaller, lighter, cheaper and takes the Canon TCs. If you do a lot of indoor and low light outdoor work, the f2.8 may well be the better lens, if not the f4 may be a better choice.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), June 08, 2001.

i once had the same question. i ended up finding a great deal on an used 80-200 2.8L with a tamron tc. i'm very very happy with it. but i will also agree with the above posters, that if you don't have to have 2.8, go with the 70-200f4... new technology, canon tc's...

-- howard (hshen@dsngmnky.com), June 08, 2001.

Bob forgot to mention that the 70-200 f4 also focuses one foot closer than its big brother which could be useful to you depending on what type of work you do. I really like this lens.

-- josh (josh@neb.rr.com), June 08, 2001.

Is the fact that 70-200f4 is not equipped with a tripod collar, not a problem? Can one use it properly on a tripod without a collar, or must you add a collar? How does it compare with the f2.8 with the 1.4X converter?

-- Koot Marais (marais@shisas.com), June 16, 2001.

I found a EF 80-200 L f:2.8 in great condition (minus some dust that I had to get removed) for $485 USD. SHOP AROUND!!! Look for auctions that are larger kits (eg: eos 1N w/ 80-200 2.8, 50 1.8, 28 1.8, etc.) When the auction doesn't sell (who goes from having nothing to wanting, and being able to afford such a huge kit?) contact the seller and offer to buy the lens seperately. Patience will reward you.

Brad Martin

-- Brad Martin (jung_offender@hotmail.com), July 10, 2001.

I think the 70-200 F4L is indeed the obvious choice in this range, as Bob Atkins said. I replaced my Sigma 70-300 APO with one of these after I got my 300mm F4L IS. Alternative is the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX, which is not much more than the canon F4L, and is reputed to be a good lens (although I have given up on third party lenses).

-- Isaac Sibson (Isibson@hotmail.com), August 05, 2001.