"L" Lens or 70-300mm IS

My 100-400 IS is pretty damn good without a tripod. See below

The above picture was at 400.

That lens in Dubai may have been a 100-300. Poor memory

I have the 70-300 IS and was very recently contemplating getting the 70-200 f/4 anyway because it's so cheap and just for the heck of it. But after posting my own version of this question here, for once reason won out and I simply stayed with the 70-300 IS.

I took it to my Mexico vacation a couple of weeks ago and used it about 40% of the time and I wouldn't do without it. For my needs it's the perfect telephoto lens and I got some great pictures of my kids in the pool and of performers at the resort with this lens.

I am very happy with the image quality.

 

-- Sanjay

For most of what I shoot I would rather have f/5.6 with IS than have f/4 without, so I bought the 70-300. If I was willing to double the cost I would have gotten the 70-200 f/4 IS, but I wasn't.

 

Image quality is similar; focal length, AF speed and build quality are not. It's just a personal choice. Only you can make it.

Wow, Joe :) Bet you didn't expect this many responses, huh? I would also go for the 70-300IS. In fact, I plan to buy it as my next lens. Assuming a 1.6x crop-sensor body, you'll really be shooting with a 112-480mm. Now, I could be wrong, but methinks that 480mm is more than long enough to cover that distance. I've used a borrowed 70-300 Sigma, and I found it pretty decent on my XTi (was shooting an outdoors wedding). I have also tried out the 70-200 f/2.8L which is SUPERB, but I don't think you would go far wrong with the 70-300IS.

<p>As an aside, what's so terrible about having a rotating front element when using a filter? Isn't it just a case of rotating your circular polarizer once you've framed your shot? Surely, is that SUCH a big deal?

Based on your self description, I would say 70-300 IS is a killer bang for the buck. I love the 70-200 f/4, but in 75% of situations the 70-300 would be preferable to me. When used properly, the 70-300 with IS will let you shoot in lower light than the 70-200 f/4. The main advantages of the L are that it gives you one faster shutter speed at the same exposure and that it is better optically. For probably 90% of shooters, these things don't contribute one iota to the final result.

 

Keith

I'm always amazed at people saying the 70-300 IS is a slow focusing lens. I used it last year at the ALMS sportscar race at Road Atlanta and found it to be an excellent lens that captured some very sharp images. The cars are traveling up to 180 mph and I had a large percentage of keepers. In fact some of the best photos I have ever taken, and I've been at it for a long time!

Just to add to my post above, here is a picture from the race using the 70-300 IS lens.

I was in Circuit City and hefted a 70-300 IS. My 70-200 and 100-400 weigh 3 lbs apiece. I was sorely tempted to buy the 70-300. The one thing I didn't say about the 70-200 was over the 13 years I have owned it I must have lifted the equivalent of a couple of tons up and down. I have always owned heavy lenses including MF. I am no longer in business so maybe it's time to go ligher. The above certainly looks good.

>>> what are your 'coulda, shoulda, woulda' thoughts <<<

 

 

In almost all circumstances I prioritize lens speed: the lens`s speed will be the ultimate governing criteria which will, when the exposure parameters are at the limits, render a shot `possible` or `impossible`; which is why I prioritize it so.

 

 

In regard to zoom lenses: I do not like those which have a varying maximum aperture across the zoom range. Varying maximum apertures are fraught with danger when working under the pressure of time, which is not exclusive to professionals, all keen photographers constantly work under the pressure of time to capture that elusive / perfect shot.

 

 

Choosing only from the two lenses in question, I would choose the 70 to 200F4L, however as Canon make an F2.8 version of that lens, personally I would buy that: and I did.

 

 

I agree with Jim: `The real comparison would be 70-300/IS vs. a 70-200/4L-IS.`, (but for me it would not be a tougher call, I would get the F4L.)

 

 

So, I think you need to evaluate IS for your needs: this IMPORTANT point (apart from the quote above) seems to be overlooked?

 

 

Like Dick, I also am no longer `in business` as such: but I would still opt for the faster lens: each of us has different priorities.

 

 

I think it best for you to take this input to assist assessing your own priorities, rather than using it as just as an answer to a `which lens` question.

 

 

In regards to: `A lens at 200mm or longer without a tripod is useless.` I disagree 100% with that statement.

 

 

WW

Wow is right, never thought about getting so many responses. I just found that my local camera store rents lenses for pretty reasonable costs(vs. internet lens rental). So may do that, rent a couple of the above aforementioned lenses, and go from there. losing a few dollars up front will let me know what I need.

Thank you all for your input. I use it wisely!

Heh. When I bought the 70-200/4L, I considered the 70-200/2.8L and the 70-200/2.8L-IS. Honestly. . .at the time I thought those lenses were simply too hacking BIG for the way I use cameras. Over the years, I do not regret buying the lighter (and cheaper!) lens.

ww. I would never give up my 70-200 2.8 even if I decided to cheat once in a while with a lighter lens. I think it will outlive me. Of all my Bronica and Canon lenses and there have been more than a few, this is my all time favorite. Second two are a 75mm Bronica PE and a Canon 28-70 2.8L. The PE was much lighter but a lot heavier than my equivilent EF 50 1.8. which is my nomination for all time best buy.

Hi Dick:

 

Ditto, I like my 70 to 200F2.8 also

 

I trust you had fun at the swim meet, I remember we chatted about it prior to the event.

 

WW<div></div>

Me doing the fly. Not bad for 75. Taken with my 70-200 2.8L taken by a friend. I am doing in water portraits. I have swum in three meets since October and have won several events in my age group. My xti only goes to 1600 and does not do that very well so I resort to flash. However, as a competitor I can shoot from the deck in bare feet so I can get quite close. Dick<div></div>

This is an example of flash. Very dark and contrasty and Harvard. About fifty percent crop also. A two hundredth and 6.3 with light in AV so the background did not go dark. WW everything is a compromise isn't it. Dick

AWESOME!

 

Regards,

 

Bill

it is either the compromise (which is I see as the `result`)

 

or it is the juggle (which I see as the `condition` - and one which I usually am in, and love it !)

 

. . .

I think they are both great lenses. I would prefer to hold out for the 70-200 EF L 2.8 IS though.

 

 

Either way I think you will enjoy. Personally if I wasnt getting the 2.8 IS, and just the F4, I would most likely get the 70-300.

 

You can pick up a 70-200 EF L f4 used pretty easily.