Canon: 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM or 70-200 f/4 L?

bazooka

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,293
Reaction score
294
Location
Houston
Website
www.dirtjournal.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I'd appreciate if you guys with experience with either of these lenses would help me out. I'm debating which one I should get.

I like the extra reach of the 300, but not if the quality turns to crap after 200mm. Would I be better off getting the L and buying an extender later on? Would the quality at the long end with an extender on the L be equivalent to the 70-300 at 300mm? Are there other options for this focal length that I haven't found?

Thanks a bunch!
 
I had the same debate a few months ago.

It comes down to what you need the lens for. I needed a new telephoto for a month trip in Australia, so I went with the extra reach and the IS of the 300. While the 200 f/4 is an amazingly sharp lens, I know my hands arent the steadiest so I went with the IS on the 300. Its also less noticable and a bit more compact/lighter me thinks.

After the debate about IS, it was between the 70-300 or the 70-200 f/4 IS. As the f/4 was out of my price range right now,and I still had an immediate need, I went with the 300.

There are Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 lenses that are supposed to be decent, but I never used one.

Here is a photo I shot a few days after I got the lens at 300mm. ISO 800, 1/25, f/5.6. Minimal post processing done on the shot, slight crop of the original. Not the best shot, but I'm happy with it.

4243361482_077d4a8c74_b.jpg
 
No contest for me 70-200 every time i have used it with a 1.4x but that was 5 years ago on a 10D never tried it on my 1D because i have other lenses that will do better than the 70-200 fitted with a 1.4 fitted, personally now i wouldn't use a telecoverter on a zoom i only use them on my primes now
 
I guess that's one vote for each. Hehe, thanks for the input guys, I hope to get more. Big, have you at any time been a bit disappointed in the quality of images, especially at the long end? I dont' know much about lens quality issues like the different types of abberation and distortion, but I guess I probably will eventually and don't want to wake up one day and look at the photo's i've been taking with newfound knowledge and think "Wow, look at all that chromatic abberation! This lens sucks!" Ya know what I mean?
 
It should be .. Do I want extra sharpness or IS with extra reach?

If extra sharpness is more important to you, then the L lens. If extra reach with IS is more important .... you know. ..
 
The IS version is certainly the best of the many 70-300mm lenses...but most of them are pretty terrible, so it's not much of a competition.

The 70-200mm L lenses are sometimes said to be the sharpest zoom lenses around. So if it's top end image quality that you are looking for, the 70-200mm is the way to go.

I can't say if you would be disappointed with the 70-300 IS or not. It might be just fine for you (as long as you never compare it directly to the 70-200mm ;) )
 
Definatly, hands down, the 70-200 is way better in terms of sharpness... its an L lens after all.

Have I been disappointed? Well, considering I'm taken a total of about 20 shots with it, my experience is very limited.

But I'm happy enough with what I have seen to suit my needs for my trip. A 70-200 f/4 IS is still top of my list though, and if I did not have this trip coming up, I would of picked that up over the 70-300. But immediate needs and available cash made me lean to the 70-300.

If you don't need a lens right now, save up the cash and get the IS version of the f/4. I don't think you'll regret it. I have some friends who picked up the 70-200 f2.8 non IS and brought it back... one upped to the f/2.8 with the IS ($500 more) and the other opted for the f/4 IS (similar price to f/2.8 non IS).

So again, if you have the cash now, get the f/4 IS with extender. If you don't have a pressing need, wait to have more money. The 70-300 is not a pro lens, the 70-200 f4 IS and non IS are pro lenses.
 
Tried to reply 3 times but the site seems to be having problems... thanks for the help guys. I just bought an f/4 L on adorama in E+ condition. I really don't think I need IS as I'll be doing most of my "real" shooting from a tripod.
 
I have the 70-200 f/4 and its an amzing lens. I cant compare it to the other lens as i have never used it but i notice the difference in IQ between this lens and my 18-50 f/2.8 and my 50mm f/1.8. Its streets ahead. I plan on buying a 1.4 converter soon to complement it.
 
Whatever you decide on, make sure you check for Canon Camera Deals at techbargains.com. I have used them for other camera purchases and it has saved me a bunch of money.
 
too bad I didn't get to you earlier. I could have really confused you by introducing the Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM into the decision. I am thinking more and more every day that this will be the next lens I buy. it is amazingly sharp wide open. compare 100% crops of this lens and the 400mm f5.6 L prime and you're not disappointed.
 
I reckon both lenses would be excellent. I'd also suggest looking at the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro lens. It's a lot cheaper, and very versatile with an excellent macro option. I bought one 6 months ago for nature photography and have loved it.
 
As someone who has a ****load of L lenses 24-7o f/2.8- 70-200 USM IS F/2.8 100 -400 400 f/2.8 ect. I do have the 70-300 USM IS and for 500 bucks this lens doesn't get the respect it deserves. It can be an extremely sharp lens and has a good reach at300 mm in a small light package. Does it beat a 70-200 f/4 ? No but the 200 isn't a 300 either.

It's a damn nice carry about lens is what is is. Don't diss it.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top