Canon 70-300 IS or 70-200 F4L?

[mmmionno]

I am headed down to australia in about a month for a month and a half and i am deciding on a telephoto zoom lens to take with me. I am deciding between the canon 70-300IS and the 70-200F4L. Anyones input would be greatly appreciated. It is for use on a DSLR if that impacts anyones opinions.

Cheers

Andrew

 

[usayit]

How important is the extra 100mm of focal length?

 

[Iron Flatline]

70-200 L has the better glass, but I'm getting to a point where my skills are good enough in proportion to what I'm shooting that I am willing to forego that kind of quality. The 70-300 is smaller, lighter, easier to carry around and still a very good lens.

Here's the point: I don't shoot for stock or to sell pictures. All I want are really good images that I am proud of. I can print them out, and/or give prints to my friends. Any of these lenses will be good enough for that.

 

[Alex_B]

if you want to shoot wildlife, maybe the longer lens will help you more. If you don't have a tripod, also IS will help alot

 

[mmmionno]

So i bought the 70-200 because i got such a great deal on it today. I don't know if i am gonna keep it, i am gonna borrow a 75-300 to get a feel for the focal length differences. The 70-200 is clearly the better lens in terms of quality, but in terms of functionality i have yet to determine whether i will stick with what i have or not.

Cheers

Andrew

P.S. I still have 15 days, so someone try to convince me one way or the other. In addition i do shoot a little bit of stock photography, so maybe in the long run the higher quality will be better for me.

 

[usayit]

The 70-200 f4L lens indeed has better optics and build quality.

If you think the extra 100mm of focal length as well as IS is important to you, I'd go with the 70-300mm IS.

 

[Johnboy2978]

for what it's worth I have the sigma ex 70-200 f2.8. It has really good reviews and some say that it tops the Canon, some deny this. I don't know b/c I shoot pentax, but it may be worth the look. Not sure what your lens cost. The Sigma from B/H is 839 usd.

 

[thebeginning]

70-200 L has the better glass, but I'm getting to a point where my skills are good enough in proportion to what I'm shooting that I am willing to forego that kind of quality. The 70-300 is smaller, lighter, easier to carry around and still a very good lens.

Here's the point: I don't shoot for stock or to sell pictures. All I want are really good images that I am proud of. I can print them out, and/or give prints to my friends. Any of these lenses will be good enough for that.

that surprises me, i figured you freelanced or something. you have some nice equipment (and nice pictures as well of course).

 

[Jeremy Z]

I think I'd go for the IS zoom over the big, heavy, and expensive L series lens. It will be more useful all-around, and will certainly be more useful when you get back home.

 

[Alex_B]

since you are at the 70-200 now, go try borrow a kenko 300 pro 1.4x teleconverter. It is supposedly cheaper than the canon extender and gives you those 100mm extra with little loss in image quality if stepped down 1 aperture stop. the image quality at 1.4x200mm might be simlar compared with the other lens at 300mm

 

[darich]

Someone asked an identical question here very recently.

In my opinion having used the Canon 75-300 IS i'd definitely recommend foing for the F4 version over the IS. Better optics without a doubt.

 

[usayit]

that surprises me, i figured you freelanced or something. you have some nice equipment (and nice pictures as well of course).

Doesn't surprise me.

Everyone says that the photographer creates the photo not the equipment. Professional photographers believe in the same thing. The type of work determines what is expected of the equipment in terms of durability, quality, reliability, and performance Its still a business with a budget that sometimes doesn't allow for the absolute best equipment at a premium cost.

I wouldn't be surprise of a lot of us on this board (including me) have been fortunate enough to afford more equipment than some professionals/freelancers work with everyday.

Besides... 70-300mm IS is still a "nice" lense.

My cousin has the 70-200mm f4L lens and takes lots of portraits of his family. Loves the lens but his daughter's latest interest in indoor ice hockey makes him wish he had the 2.8 version. As "johnboy" up there posted, I wouldn't discount other lens manufacturers.. often more bang for the buck.

 

[usayit]

I think I'd go for the IS zoom over the big, heavy, and expensive L series lens. It will be more useful all-around, and will certainly be more useful when you get back home.

I agree... I'm not a big fan of big heavy lenses to break my back.

but

Lets not confuse the 70-200 f4L (non-IS) which is the topic of this thread with the 70-200mm f2.8. The difference isn't that big. In fact the 70-200 f4L has always been the 70-200mm Canon zoom built to by carried around rather than lugged around. The weights are 760g versus 630g and price is $580 versus $550

A bit off topic but I'm wondering....

Why on earth anyone would pick the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM IS DO lens over the 70-300mm f4-5.6 USM IS??

 

[thebeginning]

Doesn't surprise me.

Everyone says that the photographer creates the photo not the equipment. Professional photographers believe in the same thing. The type of work determines what is expected of the equipment in terms of durability, quality, reliability, and performance. Its still a business with a budget that sometimes doesn't allow for the absolute best equipment at a premium cost.

That's a good point, and I agree. It's not that I think his equipment is making his shots, I meant more that his shots were so good that I figured he was a professional (either partially or fully). I was just commenting that his equipment was nice.

I wouldn't be surprise of a lot of us on this board (including me) have been fortunate enough to afford more equipment than some professionals/freelancers work with everyday.

yep. that could go both ways though, I don't think it would have anything to do with whether or not they were professionals...that just depends on the person's income and budget, and what they think they need (or want ).

 

[Iron Flatline]

that surprises me, i figured you freelanced or something. you have some nice equipment (and nice pictures as well of course).

Thanks Daniel. No, I'm a hobbyist. At some point early in my photographic career in college I realized that I have very expensive tastes, and that photography as a profession was unlikely to support me. I was living in New York in the 80s, with people at FIT (Fashion Institute) but I didn't want to go into Fashion shooting.

Now I just do it to get out of the house. I'm an investor with companies in various cities around the world (note my location tag) and I like working on images in Photoshop during long-distance flights.

Which leads me to my point: Unless someone is working on images for publication or larg print, I find that the 70-300 DO lens is fine and much more reasonable to carry around. You can sharpen parts of the image later in Photoshop. Buy an application called Nik Sharpener Pro instead of spending thousands on a fancy lens.

Look, I've had some luck in life, and have done some business things right. I can afford pretty much anything I want. I got so tired of waiting for my Leica M8 that I absolutely needed to buy myself something nice for the holidays. I went out and got a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L, and I regret it. It's too heavy, and I feel like an a$$ walking around with it. It is the opposite of how I like to shoot.

So my advice is: think about how much lens you really need, and then buy that.

mmmionno, not sure which lens you were considering, there are a lot of lenses in that range. Here's my two cents: the 70-300 DO IS is nice, as is the 70-200 IS L. If you're doing landscapes think of the 70-300, if you're doing wildlife you would probably prefer the 70-200.

Have fun. Little known fact: The Australians make phenomenal ice cream.