Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisRabior
Dan,
Silkstone,
I considered the 75-300 IS, but if I'm going to spend that much, I think I'm going to go the extra mile and pick up an L-series. I do a considerable amount of low light shooting, so the 70-200mm f/4 (and likely a future upgrade to the f/2.8) would be on the list instead of the 75-300.
I don't have much experience with OS/IS, and was just wondering if it's worth spending the extra money on it.
|
It's your call obviously, but there is little or no difference in speed between the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f/4L, and even the f/2.8 is only one stop faster which equates to using ISO 100 instead of 200. In other words, not a huge difference except in cost, size and weight.
I have the 300mm f/4L which I bought before the new 70-300 IS came out, and I doubt if I would consider it worth the difference now. The 70-300 IS is surprisingly sharp even wide open. I'd give it some more thought because, although L-series lenses are generally very good, their size and weight can be a drawback especially for hand-held shots.