Canon zoom lenses

[Mattt]

I currently have 50mm f/1.8 and 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lenses.

I also fancy getting a longer zoom for when the 85mm isn't quite enough.

I was initially looking at the 'nifty 250' but thought it might be a step backwards in IQ from what I've currently got.

I then started looking at the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, which gets reasonable reviews - apart from the slow aperture limiting low light performance. It's available for 859GBP from Panamoz - which seems a good price.

The other two main contenders seem to be the 70-200mm f/4.0L IS or f/2.8L non-IS - ideally I'd like the IS though, but the price is steep.

Am I being too harsh on the cheaper Canon zoom lenses?

[corozin]

70mm-300m F4.5-F5.6 IS is decent enough lens, not too expensive or heavy.

[Mattt]

Nice review here actualy: http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2010/11/17/cano...

Panamoz seem to be the cheapest non-scam site out there, any feedback on them? Seem to be mostly positive reviews on Google.

[fathomfive]

Do you really, really need the IS or is it a nice to have?

I can't fault the 'boggo' 70-200 F4 L I have.

[Mattt]

IS isn't a necessity - just a nice to have, gives me sightly more flexibility.

[checkmate91]

The 55-250 is amazing for the price.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/194-canon-ef-s-55-...

Currently £131 at Amazon. Worth trying out to see how often you use the longer FLs. If you're always pushing 250 then maybe the 70-300 would be the way to go eventually. From what I've read the 55-250 image quality is pretty good.

[Stuart]

Mattt said:

IS isn't a necessity - just a nice to have, gives me sightly more flexibility.

Doesn't the IS basically account for the difference between F4 and F2.8 though?

[Mattt]

Stuart said:

Mattt said:

IS isn't a necessity - just a nice to have, gives me sightly more flexibility.

Doesn't the IS basically account for the difference between F4 and F2.8 though?

Well they say it allows use of shutter speeds 4 stops slower, so for instance on this lens:

300mm x 1.6 = 480mm effective, so say 1/500 for handheld - 4 stops slower would be 1/30 if I have my figures right!

The difference between a f/2.8 and f/4 for the same exposure value seems to be only 1 shutter speed stop. Again - no expert, just my workings!

[Mattt]

Ordered (finally after going through Credit Card security checks) from Panamoz.

Will see how it goes - might try and claim the Canon £90 cashback too, but don't think they'll like it!!

[flat-planedCrank]

I'd personally have f2.8 over f4 IS - just more creative options, extra light for the af, ability to stop motion, etc.

After all, IS is just for camera shake - if you take shots where that would be a great advantage (and you can't increase the shutter speed) then it sounds like a good feature to spend money on