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

Polyphony

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
336
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
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.
 
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.
 
Do either of you think that not having image stabilization would be a disadvantage for my intended purposes?
 
Is there anyone else who was considering these two lens? What did you ultimately decide on and what are your thoughts after the fact?
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 

Most reactions

Back
Top