canon 70-200 f/4L ... good deal?

[snappin]

I have been trying to decide whether I want to get my first longer zoom as a 70-200 f/4L or a 70-300 IS and just when I thought I had my mind made up for the 70-300 I received an offer for a used (supposedly excellent condition) 70-200 for US$350 shipped. Am I missing something or is this too good of a deal to pass up?

 

[Peanuts]

Seeing as they regularly go for $800-$900 (I think) that is a surprisingly wonderful offer - almost too wonderful. I wonder what others have to say.

 

[snappin]

...almost too wonderful. I wonder what others have to say.

Yeah.... After typing my original post I started to get the same feeling. Its a 'second chance offer' from ebay. After doing a little snooping around it seems like this is a pretty regular scam and it should appear in my messages when logged into ebay. It doesnt. I'm thinking its bogus. Sent the email to ebay to verify. Ah well, woulda been nice but I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[snappin]

yep... ebay confirmed it was bogus...bummer

 

[EOS_JD]

I've had one of these too..... If the email address is a yahoo or hotmail or other address it's bogus. Ebay will contact you themselves of any second chance offers.

i'd still take the 70-200L over the 70-300IS - better balanced, sharper, faster, higher IQ.

 

[TomHuck-wa]

I have a 70-200 and often use a doubler for wildlife, and I get some really sharp pics with this setup just a thought

 

[darich]

i had the 75-300 IS and would definitely recommend the 70-200 f4 over the longer lens every time.

 

[table1349]

Take a look here. New, good vendor and only $557.00

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...198&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

 

[snappin]

i had the 75-300 IS and would definitely recommend the 70-200 f4 over the longer lens every time.

Well now that the discussion is open I might as well ask your guys opions with respect to what I have been thinking.

One thing I have read (I know you cant believe everything you read on the internet but bear with me) is that the 70-300 is quite a bit sharper than the 75-300.

What it came down to in my mind is I think the IS might be more useful for me than the L optics. My biggest problem is that I am not sure exactly what application this lens is going to be for. Really I want an all around zoom thats long enough to have on hand for those shots that need a little extra reach.

At this point I'm just trying to build a decent setup so I can experiment as much as possible with different parts of photography. At the same time I dont want to spend a chunk of money on a lens that I am going to want to upgrade in a year. It seems that glass is something worth investing in since it doesnt get outdated nearly as fast as most things these days.

I think if it comes down to paying full price (~$600) I'm going to have to try both of them out. I was thinking about going to a shop and taking some shots with both and then comparing the results at home. I've also found a place close by that will rent them and I'm thinking I might even want to spend a week or so with each lens and find out whats more important.

I dont know, what do you guys think.

 

[sothoth]

One thing I have read (I know you cant believe everything you read on the internet but bear with me) is that the 70-300 is quite a bit sharper than the 75-300.

I've heard that too, from the guy who sold me the 70-300 IS, which I quite enjoy.

What it came down to in my mind is I think the IS might be more useful for me than the L optics.

I came to the same conclusion and purchased the 70-300 IS. The 70-200 is a great lens as well, but I felt the IS would make a difference for me for wildlife shooting. I was more or less talked into that on this forum, and I'd say it turned out nicely.

My reasoning was that I'd benefit from the longer max focal length of the 70-300, and that IS would be really beneficial at that length. The 70-200 may be optically superior. Having said that, I'd end up needing to use a teleconverter (which isn't free) to get the zoom I wanted, and in that case, I might be suffering without the IS. I think it's hard to keep the camera and lens steady at 300 (at least on a consistent basis) without IS. Other disagree, saying you're better off improving your technique. That's not untrue, but there's only so much I can do to steady a camera when shooting wildlife that tends to move quickly. If you want to do a different type of shooting with it, maybe that's not important to you though.

I think if it comes down to paying full price (~$600) I'm going to have to try both of them out. I was thinking about going to a shop and taking some shots with both and then comparing the results at home.

If you can try them both out, DO IT!! There is no substitute for you holding them, shooting with them, and looking at your photos with each. What works for one person might not work for you, so a hands-on is always prefferable if you have that option.