Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or 70-200mm f/4 L NON IS

[Polyphony]

70-300 Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens 0345B002 - B&H Photo Video

70-200 Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens 2578A002 - B&H Photo Video


What are your opinions? I've read reviews that favor both lenses.

Some say that you can crop an image from the 70-200 and it will look as sharp or sharper than a 300mm shot from the 70-300. The 70-200 L is only $100 more.

With the 70-200 you get L quality glass. You lose 100mm and image stabilization
With the 70-300 you don't get L quality glass. You gain 100mm in reach and you get image stabilization.

Whichever lens I choose will be used for outdoor sports/action, landscape, nature, and some wildlife. Basically so I can reach out to what the 18-55 kit can't get to.

I'm stuck and I need your opinions. Thanks.

 

[Derrel]

I would rather own the 70-200 f/4 L...it is the bettert-made lens,and it offers an f/4 aperture all the way from 70 to 200mm...the slower lens will limit you to f/5.6, probably beginning right around the 200mm zoom mark. I have shot the 70-200 non-IS model...it's a nice lens, solidly made and well-balanced.

 

[gsgary]

^ + 1 i would always go L over consumer

 

[Polyphony]

Do either of you think that not having image stabilization would be a disadvantage for my intended purposes?

 

[gsgary]

Do either of you think that not having image stabilization would be a disadvantage for my intended purposes?

Non of my lenses have IS but i don't need them for what i shoot

 

[Polyphony]

Is there anyone else who was considering these two lens? What did you ultimately decide on and what are your thoughts after the fact?

 

[gsgary]

Is there anyone else who was considering these two lens? What did you ultimately decide on and what are your thoughts after the fact?

You could get the 70-200 and 1.4x and it would be still as fast as the 70-300

 

[gsgary]

You look cooler with white lenses another reason for the 70-200

 

[Polyphony]

Is there anyone else who was considering these two lens? What did you ultimately decide on and what are your thoughts after the fact?

You could get the 70-200 and 1.4x and it would be still as fast as the 70-300

That's true. I'm most concerned about the IS though. At 200mm in unfavorable lighting how will the non-IS lens hold up?

 

[LCARSx32]

Is there anyone else who was considering these two lens? What did you ultimately decide on and what are your thoughts after the fact?

You could get the 70-200 and 1.4x and it would be still as fast as the 70-300

That's true. I'm most concerned about the IS though. At 200mm in unfavorable lighting how will the non-IS lens hold up?

I'm out of my league commenting on lenses like these, but a thought came to me while I was reading this: In unfavorable lighting, wouldn't you have it on a tripod anyway?

Sorry if that's a stupid response, but I *almost* always have my 75-300mm Sigma DL on the tripod.

 

[reznap]

I have the 70-300is and it's a nice lens. It's pretty darn sharp, even at 300mm - especially when not wide open. The IS is helpful at times I suppose.. I'd trade it straight up for a 70-200 f/4L though. From what I understand, the image quality is just a tad better on the f/4L and 200mm at f/4 is a pretty shallow DOF - which is nice as well.

 

[Polyphony]

You could get the 70-200 and 1.4x and it would be still as fast as the 70-300

That's true. I'm most concerned about the IS though. At 200mm in unfavorable lighting how will the non-IS lens hold up?

I'm out of my league commenting on lenses like these, but a thought came to me while I was reading this: In unfavorable lighting, wouldn't you have it on a tripod anyway?

Sorry if that's a stupid response, but I *almost* always have my 75-300mm Sigma DL on the tripod.

What I meant was maybe on a very cloudy day at full zoom.

 

[loosecanon]

I had a 70-300 for 1 1/2 years, loved it, until I used a 70-200L non IS. Sold the 70-300 as soon as I could, got a 70-200L non is and have never looked back. I was concerned about loosing the IS since I do not have very steady hands, but since I always use it outdoors or indoors with strobes I have not missed the IS or the longer reach.

 

[Polyphony]

Thanks for everyone's input. Everyone has given me useful info that I will use to make my decision. I will probably go with the 70-200 because of its superior quality. For $100 more it seems like it can't be beat.

 

[gsgary]

Is there anyone else who was considering these two lens? What did you ultimately decide on and what are your thoughts after the fact?

You could get the 70-200 and 1.4x and it would be still as fast as the 70-300

That's true. I'm most concerned about the IS though. At 200mm in unfavorable lighting how will the non-IS lens hold up?

IS is only good in low light if everything is stationary