going long....

[Big Mark]

ok, so I've got my "walkaround lens", got my wide angle and love my nifty fifty - now I'm looking for a telephoto. I've narrowed it down to the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). I'm leaning towards the 70-300, but wanted it to run it by you guys frist to get your thoughts. Here's what I'm thinking:

Price - essentially a push.

Image quality - No doubt the 70-200 has better IQ as it's an L lens, but I've been reading on dpreview.com that the 70-300 has better image quality than my 28-135. I'm satisfied with my 28-135 in that department, so I'm thinking that ignorance is bliss in regards to the L lenses. If I don't know what I'm missing, I may not miss it.

IS - I think it's got to be a plus, I dont have a terribly steady hand as is, so this'll help. I very rarely turn it off on my 28-135.

Range - One of the reasons I'm wanting a longer lens is shoot sports - likely from the stands. More reach the better.

I've toyed with the idea of the 200mm f2.8 prime as well as really breaking the bank with the 100-400 L. I'm worried that the prime wont ber versitle enough and I'm having trouble swallowing the price tag on the 100-400.

Are there any other options I'm missing? Any factors I should take into consideration that I've forgotten?

[DireWolf]

You're shooting with Canon, right? The reason I'm asking is because Nikon's just come out with a 200mm lens with vibration reduction that's supposed to sell for about $250.00. If you're using Nikon, that might be a good option.
I'm thinking about getting a long lens. When I do, I'll go cheap. I have shake reduction built into my Pentax and I really don't use a long lens that much.

[Big Mark]

ok, so after some more thought, I've changed my mind on some things....

I feel like if I go with the 70-200 F4 I'm making a comprimise... if I go "L" I feel like I should just save for another month or two and go with the 70-200 2.8 IS.

That means my decision comes down to a $560 lens vs. a $1700 lens. Essentially I could get a) the 70-200 2.8 IS or b) 70-300 IS, 200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, and a 1.4x teleconverter. I think my decision has pretty much been made. I lose the IS and the convenience of zoom on my "L" glass, but I get a lot more reach (although I I've heard the 70-300 can be a little soft past 200mm).

Am I way over thinking this? help!

[Playa]

I think we've given you enough free advice. From here on out I will require a consultation fee.

[LarryD]

i dont think they'll let you shoot from the stands with your 70-200.

if you're shooting outside, you won't miss the IS -- at least i don't. i've got the 70-200/2.8 -- fantastic lens.

if i were just starting out, though, i would go primes.

but that's after shoootinng for a year with three L zooms -- so, maybe i'd think differently if i shot for a year with primes, then compared.

i think i could live with 35/1.4, 85/1.2 and 135/2...i THINK. not sure though.

[Big Mark]

yeah, I've heard stories of people getting refused at gates with white lenses. I got into BoA with the 75-300 just fine. I doubt I'll ever get great shots from the stands anyway, but I think I'll enjoy pretending... it is something to consider.

I'm really loving the image quality of my 50mm prime. I certainly think I'll add a few others to my collection. I'm planning on going though my photos and seeing which lengths I've been using the most to see which primes would likely benefit me the most.

[QueenCityHillbilly]

Mark, something to think about here. I get hammered at many Panthers games. I've seen you hammered at many Panthers games. Are you sure taking high dollar glass up in there up in there is a good idea?

[Big Mark]

Valid point. I think the only time I'll take my camera to the game is when I've got the club tickets my company gives out. When I've got those seats, I don't really drink.

Regardless - I decided to break down and get a telephoto. I ended up going cheap and getting the 70-300mm IS. Should have it here on Wednesday. :30:

[allrightnow]

i think i could live with 35/1.4, 85/1.2 and 135/2...i THINK. not sure though.

I used to live with a 24/2.8 or 28/2.8, 105/2.5 (later added an 85/1.8) and a 180/2.8 and zoomed with my feet.

My longest now is an older version Nikkor 300/4 D AF-ED. My son took it into the Bosh in Chapel Hill during the super regionals this summer and somebody saw it and made him take it out of the stadium.

[dig-it]

I just ordered the pentax 50-200 for my K10D. Its not a fast high dollar zoom, but its an honest reliable workhorse. I`d like to get the new Tamron 18-250, but it`ll cost more than double what I paid for the 50-200.

[Big Mark]

I ended up going cheap and getting the 70-300mm IS. Should have it here on Wednesday. :30:

Bad Call - Unless it really surprises me at training camp this weekend, it's going back. Focus seems to be REALLY slow on in and both the focus and the IS are noisy as hell. Maybe it was a bad copy, but I'm thinking I'm going to exchange it for a 70-200 f4 IS.

[change-up2]

She is going long-------------

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1954/26ed1.jpg

[dig-it]

Wonder where she is storing the tripod?

[change-up2]

This guy borrowed it ----


http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1618/38tz2.jpg

[dig-it]

Now... he is just showing off...

[Big Mark]

i changed my mind again - after today, I'm happy with this lens. I was impressed by how sharp it was. i coulda used another f stop or two, but for the price, I couldnt be happier. Just means I had to shoot at ISO 400 and will need some noise work in PP.