I recently purchased a new Canon Rebel XTi, and am trying to decide on a lens. I've narrowed it down to these two: 70-200 f/4L USM or 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. I was set on the L lens for wakeboarding shots, but after doing some research, the IS sounds good for everything else. How will the 70-300 take wake shots? I know the IS won't help for wake shots, but I want a good lens for travel, nature, etc. If you think I should look at another lens, keep in mind that my budget is around $600, so the L series with IS is a little too high for me.

I am getting ready to purchase the XTI myself and I have been looking at lenses as well. I have been talking with Rich Dykmans offline and he is a wealth on knowledge. At this time I can't afford two lenses, so I am looking at one decent all around lens. I am currently looking into the Tamron 18-250, that Rich suggested. I will let you know what I decide. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by LKA__SUPRA24SSV on February 27, 2007)

I'd say go with the 70-200 F4L as it will be around in your photo bag for a LONG time. (or at least until you upgrade to a 70-200 2.8). <BR> <BR>That lens has a great reputation, great user review, and most of all great pictures. <BR> <BR>If you go to FredMiranda.com (you'll have to register) check out their buy/sell page. As far as I can remember retail for the 70-200 F4 is about 599$ and used ones typically go for 525ish. <BR> <BR>I haven't read as favorable of reviews regarding the 70-300, and I do know that the 70-300 dosen't hold its value as well as the 70-200. <BR> <BR>Hope this helps a little bit. <BR> <BR>eric

The 70-200L will focus fast and is tack sharp so it's the clear winner when it comes to wake shots. <BR> <BR>The IS will only help when your shooting @ slower shutter speeds. <BR> <BR>The L lens hold there value really well too.

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&amp;A=details&amp;Q=&amp;sku=183198& amp;is=USA&amp;addedTroughType=search" target="_blank">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&amp;A=details&amp;Q=&amp;sku=183198& amp;is=USA&amp;addedTroughType=search</a> <BR> <BR>Buy a filter too.

a UV filter right? <BR> <BR>the 70-200L is a good rig to have. Honestly, if you are worrying about getting the IS for low light, I would just save up for the 70-200 2.8 IS. <BR> <BR>I actually leave my IS on all the time on the 70-200 2.8L IS. Does it help... I'm not real sure. I think I'll shoot for a while with it off. :-)

Yes...A UV filter. <BR> <BR>I wonder if the IS slows down the focusing speed ?

No need for a UV filter, just get a multi coated clear filter like the B+W 007. It is a myth that digi's need a UV filter. With a 35mm yes they do need UV. Really the only point of the filter is to protect the lense. Any lense of decent quality already is multi coated. I also bought a polerizer in a 77mm and a step down ring for my 18-200mm, which is 72mm. My 12-24mm is a 77mm. <BR> <BR>IS is great when shooting zoomed in, but it also creates some noise. Try it both on and off on a tripod sometime and you will see the difference. Use the timer or a remote, so there is not camera movement. It helps a ton though when freehanding the camera when zoomed in.

You should always have a filter on your lens for protection.

My initial impressions of the new Tamron 18-250 are positive. 18mm is way better then I expected especially stopped down a bit, AF is fast enough and accurate. <BR> <BR>200mm+ is a struggle without IS and 250mm wide open (f6.3) is on the soft side but livable. I wouldn't recommend it as a serious wakeboard shooting lens but that's not what I bought it for. <BR> <BR>It's small enough on the XTi that it may replace my powershot S7 as my toss in the back seat camera. <BR> <BR>Other then no VR the Tamron is supposed to be as good as the Nikon 18-200 and my initial shots seem to bear that out.

i have the 70-300IS and it was worked out great for me. the 70-200L probably has it for wakeboarding shots but the IS and extra 100mm of zoom on the 70-300 comes in real handy because i shoot a lot of wildlife and nature where you can't always move closer rather than zoom. The IS is also a very nice feature. if i were you, i'd save up for the 70-200L 2.8 or the 70-200f4IS

I will be buying my lenses from BH. I am now thinking about buying two decent lenses again instead of one all around lens.

If there was only 2 lenses I could own they would be the 24-105 f4L IS and the 70-200 f2.8L IS.

Thanks for your help guys. I think I'm going to go with the 70-200 f/4L for now. After watching a few of them sell on ebay, I'm sure I'll have no problem getting my money out of it when I want to upgrade.

I went with a 12-24mm Tokina and a 18-200mm Nikkor, but I have a Nikon. I really like the wide angle. I will be purchasing a 60mm for doing macro work underwater.

IS adds noise to the image? I've never noticed. <BR> <BR> <BR>Canon 10D @1600ISO, 24-105 IS @105mm, IS and non-IS shots separated diagonally by the red line. Lemme know if can tell which image has IS turned on, and which has IS turned off... <BR><img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/87667/419878.jpg" alt="Upload">

The bottom appears to have slightly more noise on my monitor.

i'd agree with the bottom having more noise <BR> <BR>they say u should not use IS when on a tripod. im assuming this was on a tripod?

I've never read anywhere, on any forum that IS adds noise to an image. With all the IS lenses I've owned I've never seen IS have any effect on noise. The noise in that image of Scott's is so close any difference is undecernable in my mind. You take 2 diffeent shots even with manual setting you could have a small difference in noise like the above. <BR> <BR>Older versions of Canon's IS (28-135, 100-400L) require you switch it off on a tripod, everything with generation 2 and up (including the 70-200 f2.8L IS) auto sense on a tripod and switch IS off automatically. There have even been arguments about that. There was a fairly long thread on FM a couple of years ago arguing that IS must be switched off on a tripod even with the newer versions (regardless of what Canon claimed) I posted shots taken with my 300 F2.8L IS of a pod with both IS on and off, (that were absolutely pixel to pixel identical) along with a few others and that pretty much ended that argument. <BR> <BR>2 detriments to IS: added cost and added bulk. <BR> <BR>If you want to see a difference in noise levels compare images from any Nikon to Canon DSLR from ISO 800 and up (and even that difference is not really that big of a deal.) <BR> <BR>Now here is a difference in noise. BTW the noise in that shot is so bad it took 4 passes from noise ninja to smooth it out at all and then PS blocked it up anyway when I resampled it.<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/87667/419909.jpg" alt="Upload"> <BR> <BR>(Message edited by richd on March 02, 2007)

I never thought buying a lens would turn into a guessing game. I guess if I had extra money laying around and have owned a SLR before it would be easier. I am back to getting just one lens and I will upgrade down the road if I get into taking pictures. Now I know my pictures won't be great, but they will be much better than the point and shoot I have been using all of these years.

That's really the best way to go. If you really get into it you'll figure out on your own what you need.