"L" Lens or 70-300mm IS

I know this is a dead horse, but what should I get, what are your 'coulda,

shoulda, woulda' thoughts.

My wife said I can get a lens for my B-day. I would like to get a 70-200 f/4 L

lens, but for the same price the ef 70-300 IS lens gives more reach.

What have you guys been happier with?

I am an advanced amateur who does not shoot for $, but like to have the best

money can buy so as not to nickle and dime myself to death on the way up to the

best, know what I mean? Just buy it the first time around.

 

Thanks

You need to better assess your needs. In what scenarios will you be shooting? Indoors? Outdoors with sun and no cloud cover? Sports? People? Buildings? The 70-300 has a variable maximum aperture. This means that at 200-300mm, it's an f/5.6 lens. If you are shooting anything alive, that will be challenging to do in low light situations, at f/5.6. For my needs, f/2.8 is the slowest I could go.

Comparing to the 70-200/4 L IS, the 70-300 is a dog. Reach ain't worth zilch if the long end is soft like Charmin... The 7-200/4 is great in terms of contrst and resolution and you can always attach a 1.4x TC for a nice 280/5.6 long end.

That is exactly what I was thinking, just get the 70-200 f/4, and be very happy, or better yet, the f/2.8. Plus I notice they come with the lens hood where as the 70-300 would be an extra 30 +/- dollars. Plus, if I ever was going to see the L lens, resale is a WHOLE lot better than the 70-300.

Thanks!

I've reviewed the 70-300IS here - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html - and made some further comments on it here - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_EF_70-300_II.html. If it's a dog, it's a Westminster show champion.

 

I previously owned and used the 70-200/4L (non-IS version). A great lens, but the limited reach (200mm) and the lack of IS make (for me) the 70-300IS a better buy and a more useful lens.

 

You might want to mainly listen to opinions from people who actually own and use the lenses in question and are commenting on the lenses you mentioned, not some other lens (such as the IS version of the 70-200/4L)

I'm in agreement with Michael on this, get the 70-200 then save up your dimes and pick up a 1.4 TC later. You will be way happier with the 70-200 compared to the 70-300.

I went with the 70-200 f/4L and eventually added a 300 f/4L IS. I would do the same thing again.

While this is not a vote against the 70-200 I will share my experiences.

I have the 70-200 2.8IS and the 70-300IS. The 70-200 is great for sports, especially indoor sports, (basketball gymnastics etc.). The 70-300 is an excellent travel lens when you want to travel light and the longer reach gives it additional capablity. I also have the 300F4. You might be surprised at how good the 70-300 can be. Even with pixel peeping I have to look hard to see too much difference between it and the 70-200F2.8IS. Maybe I have an exceptional copy of the lens. When I travel I take the 70-300, a 17-40 and a 50F1.4 and this is a great travel set-up. While I like the 70-200F2.8 it get's tiring using it for long periods. I use a 5D and digitals ability to go up in ISO with not a lot of penalty negates some of the advantages of a faster lens. Only some though as shutter speed is shutter speed and if you need to stop action then you need a faster lens. The L lens are built more robustly but I would not let image quality deter you from the 70-300IS. Please note that this is much sharper than the old 75-300 or 100-300. Some have called it an L in disguise due to it's flourite lens. Different choices for different needs.

<p><i>Some have called it an L in disguise due to it's flourite lens.</i></p><p>The only L lens that has a variable maximum aperture is the 100-400, and I'm of the opinion that it's mis-labeled, because of this.</p>

I have a 70-300 and use it for reaching *down* into the Maid of the Mist and capturing the *Wow* of the passengers on a bright day. On a park, capture a smiling child, etc. etc. Till date, at even 200% enlargement, I am yet to find a serious flaw with this lens. It's absolutely a FANTASTIC lens even AFTER 200, i.e. btw. 200 to 300. For the price, you just can't get a better lens. In fact, it's reviewed (forgot where) as a hidden "L" lens. Many just swear by L series lens and trash everything lens. If there are 2 lens worth comparing to L it's a 85 f/1.8 and this 70-300 IS. Question is: Would you be shooting in low-light? If yes, then the max. aper. of 5.6 might be serious constraint, also if indoors, etc. Do you really need the extra 100, for me - I love the extra reach. Here's a caveat - it's front-focus, so if you're using a polarizer then as the lens focus, you loose the polarizing effect and have to redo again. The hood's a bit cheap, but frankly I like the generic rubber hoods for this lens more than the dedicated - since it's HUGE..... also check eBay - there's tons of Chinese "Designed for Canon ..." hoods fitting this for about $10.00 and fits perfectly. I don't have ANYTHING against 20-200 f/4L - it's a great, great lens - but yes, this guy is a gem too.

Joe, you never mentioned how you plan to use this focal range.

 

70-300 has very nice IQ. The 70-200L's have great IQ and build quality. I was in the same situation until I rented these lenses and put them to the test. I found the 70-300IS to have a cheap/toyish feel and mechanically lacking. Circular polarizer to difficult to use. Focusing is slow. This lens just slowed me down for street photography. The 70-200 f/4IS was great except I missed the 200-300 range. Sure, with a 1.4 TC you can get the range but now it's not as wide on my 5D (98mm-280mm). Also, the white color drew to much attention, and the lens was noticeably heavier than the 70-300.

 

I passed on them both and got the 70-300DO which is black and the same size as 100 prime with ring USM. It comes with hood and case and is with me all the time. Circular polarizer works great and focus is lighting quick. IS works great and for street photography I can zoom in to 300 f/5.6 instantly. You do need to increase ISO to increase shutter speed, but noise is not a big deal on my 5D anyway.

 

Just some added thought...

About 6 months ago I went through same dilemma and eventually chose the 70-300 for a couple of reasons...

 

10 years back I had a Pentax K1000 + equivalent 100-300mm lens (forget which) and hardly used it. With my Canon I was using the 28-135 and only rarely wished to have longer reach (now 24-105L). Buying the 70-200 F4 / F2.8 was a real option but in the end I felt it better to have a lightweight lens I could carry with me easily for the few occasions I might need it. If I find that I really start using the longer lens a lot then I would purchase either the 70-200 + TC or any new variant of the 100-300 (if one ever comes out).

 

It was also worth it because the 70-300 lens came with cashback which helped ease the initial purchase and allowed the 24-105L. Sometimes I regret not having the F2.8 24-70; but then I dont take indoor photos too often (erm 3 times / year?) or need the really small Depth of Field.

I had the same choice to make recently. My answer was the 70-300 for the sake of the IS,

the extra 100 mm was a bonus. No way I could justify the cost of the IS version of the 70-

200.

 

The lens hasn't seen much use since I bought it a couple of months back, but it will do once

the sailing season starts. When I have used it, like Edith Piaf, I have no regrets.

I have owned both lenses and decided the 70-300 IS is better for me at the momnet. I wanted good image quality, stabilisation because I tend to use the lens handheld, light weight, as small as possible and black. The 70-300 IS came out ahead on these criteria by a small margin. The 70-200 L is noticeably sharper but for most purposes the 70-300 IS produces the goods with some margin to spare. In addition hand held in low light the 70-300 IS comes out better because the stabilisation gives the edge.

 

Below is a 500 pixel wide crop from a frame shot with the 70-300 IS.

 

Now the comparison between the 70-200 L IS and te 70-300 IS - that is a different story......<div></div>

Here is the whole frame.<div></div>

If you do landscape and use filters, the 70-300 will drive you mad, like all lenses with rotating front elements. For me that just eliminated most of Canon non-L lenses. The non-IS 70-200/4 is not all that good in my opinion. It is very cheap but is not worth much more in my opinion. My $200 Olympus 40-150mm is just as good. The IS version is in a different league, very very good lens, at a different price.

 

Beware that in the case if the IS at least, the pat of the lens that closest to the camera is made of plastic and joined by 3 little screws to the metal part. That lens breaks easily.

Well. . . I have a 70-200/4L. It is simply an AWESOME lens. Even with a 1.4TC attached, the images are tack sharp. I strongly disagree with Stephane on this point.

 

Now having said that, I purchased this lens in 2003 and would not purchase it again. Today, I would not consider a lens in this range without IS.

 

The real comparison would be 70-300/IS vs a 70-200/4L-IS. That is a tougher call. The 70-200/4L-IS is just short enough that you will want to buy the 1.4TC. Combined. . .this combo is a good bit more expensive than a 70-300/IS. Also. . are you sure 300mm is enough reach? Sure you don't need a 100-400/5.6?

 

If you have money to burn, the 70-200/4L-IS paired with a 1.4TC is an awesome combination. Without money to burn, the 70-300/IS is a very, very viable option.

I own the 70-200L f4, and have a good friend who owns the 70-300 IS.

 

Based on my experience with the 70-200, I'd give it a vote. As long as you understand that you basically cannot shoot with it handheld at anything slower than 1/250 on the long end, you'll be fine. It's a daytime lens, but a fantastic one at that. The IS on the other end will help with the wobbles, but the lens itself is not in the same league quality-wise. Not to say it isn't a good lens, it just isn't 'as' good. You do gain an extra 100mm on the long end and IS, but with a fixed aperture, you don't really gain much except when shooting fixed objects in 'lower' light. It's still not a low-light lens by any stretch.

 

One again, I'd second the 70-200L.... incredibly sharp, fixed f4.

He who says that the Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS is a dog doesn't own one. A lens at 200mm or longer witout a tripod is useless.

Not true. . my 1.4TC LIVES on my 70-200/4L. Image quality with the TC is superb.

 

I rarely use this lens on a tripod. . but I will be the first to concede that you want *good light*. And a high ISO setting. I frequently use this lens when hiking about. . .and as sunset approaches, this lens is problematic. At noon. . . life is good. Like I said previously. . you want IS for a lens this long.

<p><i>He who says that the Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS is a dog doesn't own one.</i></p><p>Or, has a lower tolerance for imperfection than you.</p><p><i>A lens at 200mm or longer witout a tripod is useless.</i></p><p>Really? Well, I guess this sailor was just wasting the government's time.</p><div></div>

I am thrilled with this lens.

 

I love the opportunity to use a tripod, but frankly have found that hand-held is my lot in life.

 

I have taken crystal clear photos at 300mm with the IS on this lens. I don't think there is a much better bang for the buck.

I wanted some thing light for street photography, found a used 100-300 L f/5.6 on ebay, very cheap, not as fast on focusing as some of my other L lens, but fast enough for people. They must be built well my copy was made in 1992.

INHO the advantages of 70-300 IS are: light weight, black, extra reach, IS, and it is reasonably priced (compared with the 70-200 f4 IS). Advantages of the 70-200 f4 are: robustness, weather sealed, and picture quality (not by much). I tried both and went for the 70-300 IS, but when the 70-200 f4 IS came out I sold the 70-300 IS and bought the 70-200 f4 IS instead (but I already have the 100-400 lens for the long end).

Well, in 1996 I had a Canon 70-300 IS, I forget the exact apertures. I know the date because I used it to take a picture of a woman in a halter and short, shorts in a sook in Dubai in bad light(a strong cultural contrast with the surrounding souls). It worked. However, shortly thereafter I traded it for a Canon 70-200 2.8L lens that same year. I have had the 70-200 since and recently used it to photograph a 600 person Masters swim meet at the Harvard pool. It has survived seven years of newspaper work, a few hundred weddings, a very hard drop, mud, rain and rough handling. It works as well today as when I got it. It looks new along side my new 100-400 4.5-5.6L. Which lens depends upon what you want. I always use a hood and lens covers and I bet I have only cleaned it about once a year if that. Except for swim meets I do not use a filter. I sold a lot of pictures to clients and the paper made with this unclean lens.