Hi there, i'm not really happy with my current zoom lens, a canon 70-300 mm 4-5,6 II. Bought it second hand and if i compare the results to other pics with similar focal lenght, mine seem to lack some sharpness. Maybe some motion blurr .. not really sure. So i'm thinking about buying me a new one, but what to get?? After lot's of research i'm leaning toward two lenses. Fixed focal lenses are not interesting for beeing .. yes, fixed. I like the flexibility of a zoom lens even if they do need more light. Ok, they are way to expensive too! Dreamt of haven a focal lenght beyond 400mm, but that's of no use without IS me thinks. Can't use a tripod anytime. So it comes to a Canon EF 75-300/4-5,6 IS USM or waiting one year (or two), save money like hell and get a EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS USM. Is the second one really so much better that there's no use in buying the smaller one? Some people say right that, but they seem to be pros with to much money to me ;). I'm no pro and paying 1600 Euro for a zoom lens seems to be overkill? Would my E300D even be capable to take advantage of such a lens? Or, to keep me some choice, would you believe a Sigma 170-500 lens is an option? Are there any other lenses you'd propose? Please no links as an answer. I've read so much the last days, i sometimes don't know my name anymore. I'd like to read personal statements from people, i can trust, not some anonymous website from someone not knowing what to do with his millions .. ;) .. of course, the L-lenses are better, but do i need that?? So, thanks for reading and thx in advance for any helpful comments one might have. Have a great day Raven / Tom

I'm not a lens expert, but I do know a few things...... The longer the focal length options in a zoom the lesser the quality of the images coming out of it... for example a short zoom 24-35m would be better than a 25-75mm Don't use a tripod, especially with longer focal lengths even if it is a fixed focal, expect unsharp images. If you shoot hand held your shutter speed should be 1/XXX of the focal length or you are almost guarenteed shaky images. 300 mm lens 1/300 hand held.... now add to that the fact that many of the lower priced lenses have apertures of 4.5 or higher.... A tripod is a must.... Sorry can't give advice on any lens in particular... wish I could be of more help...

Don't use a tripod with longer lenses? Why is that? If anything I'd expect the camera to calm down.

3D - I believe, but I am not 100% sure, that the 100-400IS is a better lens, optically, than the 75-300IS. I have never used the 75-300 so I'm not going to try to compare, but I have used the 100-400IS. It's a great lens, but it is also a heavy lens. Keep that in mind. I would ask you to take a look at 3 Canon zoom lenses, same focal length with different technologies, and consider them: 1) Canon 70-200mm f/4.0L - ~$600 2) Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L - ~$1100 3) Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS - ~$1600 All three are fantastic lenses. The 70-200 f2/8L IS lens is phenomonal. Great sharpness, clarity, contrast and the IS gives you 2-4 more stops of shutter speed. So, for instance, conventional wisdom says that if you were shooting at 200mm then your shutter speed needs to be at least 1/200th sec. With the IS on, that minimum shutter speed becomes 1/50th or even as low as 1/10th of a sec. You also need to take into consideration that the 70-200 becomes a 112-320mm lens on the 300D. Just a thought. Another lens I liked a lot was the Canon 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L L zoom. Had a nice 2ft close-focus distance on that one. Would pick the 70-200 2.8L IS over it any day, but it's a nice lens too. -=>Donald

With the IS on, that minimum shutter speed becomes 1/50th or even as low as 1/10th of a sec. Now that be a sweet lens...... :~)

I don't know, Donald... your latest results looked pretty swishy to me... ;-) I'm still expecting a detailed lens report. 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS $1,349.95 7.4"X3.6" 3.00 lb 70-200mm f/2.8L IS $1,619.95 7.7"X3.4" 3.5 lb EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS $ 399.95 5-7/16"X3-1/8" 23.5 Oz Interesting... the faster 200mm is a little bit thinner than the slower 400mm (which I guess isn't a surprise). But the 400mm actually has a shorter barrel than the 200mm. [The folks just love it when I compare sizes!] I can see why this discussion would make anyone's head hurt. There is very little to tell from the Marketing literature. Do some of the magazines still do lens reviews with numbers? Having a trusted recommendation is still the best, but I've gotten into too much trouble by recommending things. [The best thing that helped my sharpness, BTW, was a tripod.]

this is interesting as i'm also in the market for a new lense. the canon 28-90 that i use does not seem that sharp to me. i'm looking for something in the 200 - 300 range for some motorsport action.

Thanks go out to all of you!! Donald: as that 70-200mm L lens would be capable for use of a 1,4x-converter, the focal lenght is sufficient, but as all other L-lenses, it is too expensive for me these days because i'd like to get it with IS (2000 Euro, 1850 via ebay). Maybe without L now and the 70-200 you do like that much (for a good reason!) in two years? @3DGuy and Misha: of course, i try to use a tripod, but it's not possible all the time, some of my "models" don't agree in waiting to get it mounted or at least standing still when i'm ready ;). Plus: how to use a tripod if i'd like to have some non-standard POV? One reason to get a IS-Lens :) @Michelle: you have been of great help for reassuring me that what i thought to "know" actually is true. Theses times, that really has value to me! Thanks!! :-) @Firestorm: good luck to you! If there's not plenty of money in your pockets, there are some difficult decisions ahead.

My mommy tells me all the time-- "You get what you pay for." So, I'd go with the more expensive stufff maybe? Jinx I don't know anything about zoom lenes. So, I just thought I'd through my two cents in. :o)

Hi Jinx :) Of course you're right with saying, the more expensive stuff is (usually) the better stuff :). I do believe any word Donald says (not only because there are a lot people out there, saying right the same) but if i do need a zoom lens and don't have 1600 (100-400mm) or even 2000 Euro (for that great 70-200 L IS) i'll have to stay with what i can afford. At least i get IS ... after Donald told me, how happy he is with it. I'm not sure if those other lenses are three times better than what i will be buying (how to measure that exactly?) but they are three times as expensive. So i'll have to stay with the lower one, knowing that i don't have the best i could get and trying to make the best out of the limits, that inferior lens gives me. If sometimes taking photos gives me some real money, i'll think about that question again. So thanks to you too Jinx :o) As an info to all you helpful people: today i gave my old zoom-lens back to the dealer i bought it some weeks ago. He's nice enough to give me the full money back. And i ordered a 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM. Will get it within the next two weeks (hopefully!!). If anyone is interested, i'd give you information on how happy i will be with this one. But as it is better than what i had, i will surely not be too disappointed .. just should never ever think of that L-series again sigh ... but what is a man without dreams? :) Thanks again to ALL of you! Hope, sometimes i can give something in return! :-)

Raven - I know exactly where you're coming from, 'cause I'm in the same boat as you. I wish I could afford $1200-1800 for a nice L lens now, but there's no way. I loved the IS system in the 100-400L and 70-200L so I went with the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. I have not been disappointed with it yet. Please do let me know how you like the new IS lens. One thing that always freaks me out about the Canon USM lenses is how quiet they are when auto-focusing. Especially after using an older 3rd Party Lens (like Sigma or Tamron). I had been looking at the Tamron 28-105mm f/2.8, but those crazy buggers priced it at something like $1400. BAHAHA If I'm paying $1400, I'm buying a Canon L lens. Luckily, street price is around $800 (and I think they have a $50 rebate going on right now). Amazingly, one of the sharpest lenses around, the Canon 70-200mm f/4L is like $550 after a Canon rebate. And the 50mm f/1.4 is down to $280. Ohh the pain ... the pain. Of course, I still dream of the Canon 85mm f/1.2L, the 50mm f/1.0L, the 16-35mm f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lenses. I really gotta get going on that whole "Hitting the Lottery" plan I've had for years. :) -=>Donald

I bought the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and had problems with motion blur I prefer to shot at 100 iso and hand held. I sold that lens and got the 100-400 Canon IS and have been very happy with it's performance. I still have to use a monopod in low light, I like the mobility of the monopod because I walk allot while looking for shots. I also had the 100-300 Canon IS and it was a nice clean lens for hand held shots. I used it to cover a couple of races it's a great lens if you can get the 100-400 IS right now. I can direct you to a photo gallery of the races I used that lens on if you would like. Randys

@Donald: i'll let you know! :-). Still no delivery .. :-( @Randys: thank you!! 100-300 IS or 75-300 IS? Never heard of an 100-300 lens with IS but i may very well be wrong with that!! I'd bet you're happy with that 100-400 L IS lens g .. if anyone is willing to buy exclusive rights on some of my pics .. loool I'd like to see that galery, of course. If you'd post the URL here? Do you have similar shots with both lenses to compare them? Thx in advance! As you did mention Sigma: my dealer here was saying, that Sigma has some technical problems (e.g. metal-screws within plastic counterparts which does look like high-value but is way inferior to just glueing) and he's getting back a lot of that lenses. Also, there are (he said) problems with just re-engineering canon-techniques (instead of licensing them) which can lead to compatibility-issues later. Don't know if he's right with that as i'm quite happy with my Sigma-Macro lens .. but of course, what can i say after 3 weeks ... ;-)

Ooops ... something's missing: Greetinx, Raven / Thomas ... sorry, didn't want to be rude ;-)

Thank you! I'll look at them tomorrow. This moon is shot hand held? Hardly believable. wow cu, Raven

Don't be to impressed it was not shot at night it was in the afternoon. Randy