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

[Taylor510ce]

You can probably get the 70-300 cheaper on the used market. I picked one up for like $350 used and loved it. I used it with a Kenko 1.4x for outdoor shots and the AF still worked as well as the IS. It was very decent for the price it cost me. Had I bought new, I may have opted to pay a little more for the 70-200 ( not having used the 70-300 yet ), but I have heard that its not really THAT great of a lens and not up to snuff with most of their L lenses.

I think it all comes down to What you plan to shoot, what time you plan on shooting, and how close you need to get to the subject.

EDIT:
Whoops, did not read all of the original post. I loved the 70-300 outdoors. The 70-200 would be much better for sports since you don't need quite as much distance typically and you would be at f/4 on either lens at that point so why not have the "L" glass. For birds and skittish wildlife I would go with the 70-300.

 

[Polyphony]

You can probably get the 70-300 cheaper on the used market. I picked one up for like $350 used and loved it. I used it with a Kenko 1.4x for outdoor shots and the AF still worked as well as the IS. It was very decent for the price it cost me. Had I bought new, I may have opted to pay a little more for the 70-200 ( not having used the 70-300 yet ), but I have heard that its not really THAT great of a lens and not up to snuff with most of their L lenses.

I think it all comes down to What you plan to shoot, what time you plan on shooting, and how close you need to get to the subject.

EDIT:
Whoops, did not read all of the original post. I loved the 70-300 outdoors. The 70-200 would be much better for sports since you don't need quite as much distance typically and you would be at f/4 on either lens at that point so why not have the "L" glass. For birds and skittish wildlife I would go with the 70-300.

Thanks for the input. Ideally I would get my hands on both of them just to try out for a bit. Then I'd be able to make a better decision.

 

[Taylor510ce]

Well the beauty of getting the 70-300 used, is if you don't like it, you can probably get close to what you paid by re-selling. I sold mine when I got my 70-200 2.8 IS and got back what I spent on it, which was pretty nice.

 

[DennyCrane]

It depends on what you'll use it for. If you're going to hand-hold at full zoom, I'll take the 70-300 everyday because of the dual mode IS. If you're going to be on a tripod, the 70-200 might be a good choice. Don't discount the quality of the optics in the 70-300 just because it doesn't have a coat of white paint. I've gotten some spectacularly sharp pictures with mine.

 

[Polyphony]

It depends on what you'll use it for. If you're going to hand-hold at full zoom, I'll take the 70-300 everyday because of the dual mode IS. If you're going to be on a tripod, the 70-200 might be a good choice. Don't discount the quality of the optics in the 70-300 just because it doesn't have a coat of white paint. I've gotten some spectacularly sharp pictures with mine.

Would you say that the image quality (sharpness) is comparable to or better than the 18-55 kit lens?

 

[Idahophoto]

I also would go with the 70-200/4 Much better build quality. IS is nice but you will be fine without it. I am in same boat but I look at them separately and the 70-200 will be first I get easily. For the 300, ill probably save a bit more and get the Sigma 120-400/4.5-5.6 instead.

 

[Polyphony]

Every new post makes my decision more difficult

 

[DennyCrane]

It depends on what you'll use it for. If you're going to hand-hold at full zoom, I'll take the 70-300 everyday because of the dual mode IS. If you're going to be on a tripod, the 70-200 might be a good choice. Don't discount the quality of the optics in the 70-300 just because it doesn't have a coat of white paint. I've gotten some spectacularly sharp pictures with mine.

Would you say that the image quality (sharpness) is comparable to or better than the 18-55 kit lens?

Much better.

 

[Taylor510ce]

the 70-300 is WAY better than the kit lens in terms of IQ. As said, it also works great with a 1.4x pro300 DGX teleconverter to get you even more length, and also with extension tubes. ( not that the 70-200 doesn't ). Don't be fooled though, you will probably still need to post process your images slightly to really get that tack sharp look.

 

[cfusionpm]

I own the 70-300 IS USM and it's performed pretty well over the time I've had it. I've never used the 70-200 f/4, but the 2.8 IS II is significantly sharper. It's definately not as tack sharp as my L, but it's a lot better than the kit lenses. I still own both (originally bought the 70-300 three or four years ago) but never really use it unless I don't want the weight and attention that a giant white lens gets.

^ EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM 1/640 sec at f/4.5, ISO400

 

[Polyphony]

Thanks for all the feedback. Right now I am leaning towards the 70-300 because I think I'll prefer having IS. I'll save my money for an L lens at a later time.