Canon 70-200 F4L IS vs Canon 70-300 IS

I have a Canon 40D with 17-40L and 28-135 KIT lens. Looking to complement the

lens system with a telephoto zoom. I have searched this site and the internet

and most of the comparisons are for the non-IS version of the Canon70-200 F4L

since it's almost the same price as the 70-300IS.

 

 

I am looking for input on the 70-200 F4L IS vs. the 70-300IS. Disregarding the

price difference, is the L build and non-rotating front worth losing the extra

100mm on the long side?

 

I would like to get the L lens since i shoot in dusty conditions, but 200 is

very close to the long side of my 28-135 and the 300 seems like a better

complement.

 

appreciate any help in making this choice, specially with the Canon rebates

still in effect (for the L lens at least).

For landscapes from a tripod, I see no use for the f/2.8, and a substantial weight penalty! I own the non-IS f/4 and it is perhaps my favorite landscape lens.

 

I believe some bird photographers use the 70-200/2.8 for flight photography on crop photo cameras where the f/2.8 is useful (especially if they add a teleconverter). But I'm not positive, as I'm not much of a bird shooter.

You don't mention what you intend to shoot with this lens. Tell us that and you will get better input.

Good point. I intend to use this tele zoom for mainly wild life and nature photography. my 17-40L and 28-135 are doing well for my landscape shots.

 

Also, I noticed the 55-250 seems to be coming out in the US next year, so might as well throw that in the selection. So i guesss my choices are the 70-200F4L IS, 70-300 F4-5.6 USM IS, and EFS 55-250 F4-5.6 IS

How about the EF 300mm f/4L IS? it's sold for about the price of the EF 70-200 f/4L IS. I own the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS, it's a supert lens but it's lacking the reach for wildlife as I love to photograph birds. I guess Santa is giving me the 300 f/4L IS for this Christmas :)

 

Anyways you can check its review here

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Depends on what sort of wildlife and nature, of course, and on how skilled you are at getting close, but even on a 1.6-factor body it is usually considered desirable to be able to go longer than 200mm. Up to 200mm, and provided f/4 is fast enough, the 70~200/4L IS is in my view the ideal choice - performance is absolutely stunning. Unusually for a zoom, this lens also works really well with the Extender 1.4x, a combination that I have used quite a bit. That recovers almost all of the extra 100mm, and quality is probably at least competitive with the 70~300. So provided that you can stand the quite considerable cost of buying both the 70~200/4L IS and the Extender 1.4x, you can cover everything that the 70~300 would, with a faster lens of truly outstanding quality in the 70~200 range.

Joe, I had the 70-200 f4 L and later sold it and bought the 70-300 f4.5-6 IS instead. The two lenses each have their pros and their cons.

 

The 70-200 L is sharper especially at full aperture and that to some extent nullifies the extra reach of the 70-300 as you can crop the 70-200 shots more and still get a good image.

 

The 70-300 has the useful IS feature. If you take pictures handheld in anything less than bright sunshine the IS is invaluable as it gives better sharpness under marginal conditions.

 

The 70-300 is smaller and black. I find white lenses are a pain as they draw too much attention.

 

The 70-200 is better built and better sealed.

 

So you need to choose based on your own shooting preferences. If you don't use a tripod the IS helps a lot. If small size is important then the 70-300 IS wins though the 70-200 L is smaller than most compretitors of that quality. The dust is a bit of an unknown quantity. I have used my 70-300 IS in salty sandy conditions without problem.

 

For me the equation came out as the 70-300 IS but it is a close call and both lenses are very good indeed.

Good discussion of the available options. Although I recently sold my 70-300 IS to get the 70-200 f4 IS, I would suggest the 70-300 might be YOUR best choice -- gives you more reach and more flexibility at a time when you're exploring what you like to do.

 

But also be aware its not a life or death decision -- both of these lenses are coveted for their fine qualities, so they are in high demand. Should you buy one and decide to sell it later, you can count on recovering at least 80% of your initial investment, maybe more -- I got 83% thanks to a rebate on the 70-300.

PS: That means I "rented" my 70-300 for one and half years for about $90!

<I>I intend to use this tele zoom for mainly wild life and nature photography. </I><P>

 

As usual, I agree with Robin S. Although the 70-200/4 IS is a superb lens (I like mine very

much indeed), it's much too short for most wildlife. If you are serious about the latter,

consider the 300/4 IS + 1.4X mentioned by Sinh, or maybe the 100-400 if you really want

a zoom. The 100-400 has something of a mixed reputation at the longer focal lengths

but -- with mine, at least -- if you stop down to f8 it's quite good.<P>

 

 

Not sure if it's been mentioned but the 70-200/4 IS has substantial weather-sealing,

unlike the 70-300 (or the 100-400 or, IIRC, the 300/4).

the 70-300 is a great street lens (especially on a 40d). this type usage presumes you're not using a tripod. under these conditions i don't think there is any competition for that zoom range.

 

but, image quality does not compare to the 70-200. IQ on the 70-300 is very good but doesn't have that cleaness the L lens delivers. on the flip side the L lens just doesn't have the reach.

 

so -- if you're planning to shoot wildlife (and you barely have adequate reach with the 70-300) you won't be satisfied with the L lens.

 

seems to me like the proper choice would be the 100-400 (does this lens work with converters?). it's in a different price range but it's the answer. besides, seems like this lens is de rigueur for wildlife. you might also consider a 300 + 1.4 and 2.0 converter.

 

let's put it this way. if you try to shoot a chipmunk with a 200 it will be a speck. with a 300 -- not much better, but if subject is close enough could be usable.

 

i've seen some very nice wildlife shots (small animals) done with a 40d and a 600mm. recommend a 300 and a 600, or a zoom equivalent. if you're limited by cost, recommend you wait

I have the 70-300 IS, I purchased it when it first came out. I use it with a Kenko 1.4 telextender and my bird pics are great. For birds, I don't think you will be satisfied with 200mm coverage even with a telextender. The image quality will be somewhat better with the 200mm, so you have a choice. For me the 70-300 won hands down. OC a 500 or 600mm would be nice, but as an amateur, I don't want to spend that much money. Good Luck.

You might think about saving a bit more and get the 100-400mm L IS. Yes, it is more costly, but you will really feel the greater reach when you start shooting wildlife. As far as image quality goes, the 100-400 doesn't really stand back for anything else - after all, it is an "L" lens. Note - it also has IS.

<I>As far as image quality goes, the 100-400 doesn't really stand back for anything

else</i><P>

 

It's a good lens, but not in the same league as a 'high end' prime, like one of the IS

supertelephotos. Of course the latter are a lot bigger, less versatile, and much more

expensive than the 100-400, but here you get what you pay for.

True, but "Looking to complement the lens system with a telephoto zoom." A prime isn't going to work for him.

I had the 70-300 IS and when I directly comparedit to the 7-200L non -IS, I preferred the better quality of the L in the images I tested. I could see better details in the hightlights and an overall better look. I gave up the IS feature as well as the extra focal length for the better optics. I also like the fact that the 70-200OL is internal focusing.

I love the 70-200/4L non-IS. For my shooting style I favoured the lighter f4 version over the heavier f2.8 version. The f4 IS version unfortunately comes with a price penalty but is widely regarded as Canon's sharpest telephoto zoom lens. IS on a telephoto lens is incredibly useful (and this is from an inveterate tripod user) and the price premium is worth it.

 

If you couple it with a 1.4x extender you get a 280/5.6 IS lens. This compares with the 300/5.6 IS lens from the consumer zoom. The image quality is comparable. The next question is about AF speed. The 70-200/4 IS is very speedy without the extender but slow with it. The 70-300/4-5.6 IS is not going to win any speed contests.

 

My bird lens is the 300/4 IS coupled with the 1.4x extender. Great optically (though you benefit from stopping down one stop) but it struggles with AF for flight shots (largely because even with the focus limiter on it focuses too closely - a three position switch would have made this lens much better - in general the close focusing is a great feature).

 

Honestly for birds I suggest that you look at the Tamron 200-500. It is a much less flexible telephoto since it lacks IS and is very slow at the long end but optically it is probably the best birding bang for the buck.

 

I consider the 70-300/4-5.6 IS to be the value leading telephoto lens but your proposed usages will show up its slower AF.

>> Disregarding the price difference, is the L build and non-rotating front worth losing the extra 100mm on the long side?

 

Yes.

 

>> I would like to get the L lens since i shoot in dusty conditions, but 200 is very close to the long side of my 28-135 and the 300 seems like a better complement.

 

1. Consider replacing the 17-40 and 28-135 for a 17-55.

 

2. Consider the 300/4 IS instead of the 70-200 or 70-300.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Hi Yakim,

I am surprised by your answer since i am pretty sure I saw a thread from a while back that if i remember right you concluded that you're going to buy the 70-300. did you own the lens and did you have any issues with it?

 

I tried both lenses at a camera shop and although I love the build of the L lens, it just does not have the reach I desire and at this time I like to keep it simple and don't want to deal with a 1.4x or 2x TC. I did not try the 100-400 but lugging around 3Lb+ sounds a bit too much, and carry 4 lens including a prime 300 is too much for travel (for me). so I am almost at the point of settling for the 70-300, interested in knowing why you voting against it.

1. In the tele end I had 200/2.8, 300/4 IS, 70-200/4, 70-200/4 IS, 70-300 IS and 70-200/2.8. I currently have the 70-200/2.8 IS and 1000/11.

 

2. Each lens has it's pros and cons. I try to recommend the one best suited to the OP's requirements. If he would hesitate between the 70-200/4 non-IS and 70-300 IS I'd recommend the latter as I feel that having a slow tele lens without IS is very limiting. However, the OP is hesitating between the 70-200/4 IS and 70-300 IS. In that case I'd recommend the former.

 

3. I sold the 70-300 IS as the poor BQ, slow AF and rotating front lens element were getting on my nerves. That said, it has great IS, IQ and awesome value for money.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

if your willing to pay the price for the 70 200f/4 IS tou can buy the 70 300 is and the 70 200 f/4 non is

And the advantage of doing so is....

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I have the 70 200f/4 and the images are comparable to prime lenses in the same focal length what other zoom can you do that with. And you can crop the images on a 70 200, f/2.8, f/4, IS non IS, it doesn?t matter, and with maybe a small bit of sharpening and that?s maybe, you'll get the same IQ as the 70 300 IS. We can talk about this all day long which is better in the 70 200 range, but the only thing separating a ?370 lens and a ?1300 lens (I?m referring to the 70 200 f/4 and the 70 200 f/2.8 IS), is 1 stop and the IS. I personally think Canon is screwing us because I can not see how the 70 200 f/4 doubles in price just for IS. But that doesn't mean you don't need it, and that is the answer. If your a professional you need the 70 200 2.8 IS, you offset the price on your tax and you've got the best equipment for difficult situations. If you?re not a professional then you?re an amateur with plenty of cash to spend, and good luck to you. Only you can decide if you need the extra stop and IS. Here some advice I'm sure some might not agree, the 1.4TC is very good the 2X TC IQ goes down hill, if you can't afford IS, use a monopod if you don't want to carry a tripod, they are not that big and learn how to hold the camera, use the camera strap and wrap it tight around your forearm and pull the camera firmly against your head. And of course just up the ISO on a good body 400 ISO is ok and at a push 800 ISO will get you out of trouble. One of the best things I have found is to under expose the soot by 1 stop and shoot it in RAW, Bringing it back in Photoshop won't damage the image. The 70 300 IS is very impressive and if you?re testing it against 70 200 in the right conditions the IQ is comparable, don?t just think about sharpness, there are CA, how it translates the colour. Also the 70 300 may be sharp in the centre, what about the edges, a lot of my photos doesn?t have the main subject in the center.Regarding the 100 400, good lens but it?s too big to take it with you in case you need it. And it?s a big luxury for a Zoo lens, if you?re going to be serious about small wildlife the only way to go is a prime lens. Now just get out there and make some photos and don't keep worrying

By the way I have a 28 135 IS,and it's true there is not much focal difference with the 70 200.At 70mm the 28 135 is ok but belive me compare the shots to a 70 200 f/4 at 135 or 100,and you'll never shoot above 70 again with a 28 135 IS

Sorry. I can't understand the relationship of your answer to my question.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.