Canon 70-300IS USM OR 70-200/4 L USM? Which one?

Assume for a moment that 200mm is long enough. Which lens delivers better

image quality to the naked eye(not just based on lab tests)? How important is the

70-300's "IS" over the 70-200 that doesn't have "IS"(at least not the specific lens

that I'm looking at)? I think when all votes are in, the IS issue may win out.

 

I'd appreciate your remarks regarding these lenses. Thanks

it's funny that earlier someone compared the 55-250 to the 70-200/4 and I thought that was a poor comparison and would have more easily and competently compared the 70-300 to the 55-250. The 70-300 is over prices but sharp. The the 70-200/4 without IS is too slow in my opinion...

I'd either save for the IS version or I'd just save a bunch and buy the 55-250

JC

If you intend to shoot handheld most of the time, I'd get the 70-300IS lens. If you don't need anything over 200mm and intend to use a tripod, get the 70-200/4L.

I just noticed you have a classified ad on photo.net offering to trade your 70-300 IS for a 70-200 f/4.

 

Nevertheless, although the comparison of these two lenses has been covered numerous times on this forum before, I still can't decide so hopefully some new opinions will roll in.

I had a shoot in a dark auditorium last night and didn't have a tripod. I have the 70-200L F4 without IS. <br/><br/>

 

I was shooting at 200mm, ISO 1600, F4, 1/50 and probably 80% of my shots were very sharp. The remaining 20% were only mildly unacceptable, and would probably be fine for website or small print purposes.<br/><br/>

 

As far as image quality goes, it doesn't get any better than the 70-200L F4 or 2.8 in a zoom lens. It's truly remarkable. Sharp and with no noticeable distortion, abberations, or vignetting. <br/><br/>

 

How important is IS? That's personal preference. Considering it's performance last night for me, I probably could have gotten away with 1/20 or slower, but then subject blur would have been completely unacceptable. So, for me, I see f2.8 being much more valuable in the long run. IS, at least to me, is much less important than maximum aperture. Then again, I might have naturally steadier hands than some, and have spent considerable time practicing hand holding at slow shutter speeds...I have an image taken last night @ 1/60 at 200mm handheld in the 'rebel XSi review posted' thread below.

I have both, most of the use they get is for auto racing and the results are impossible to tell apart. The build quality of the L is better but I find the 70-300 is more then adequate. IS is a big deal for most people but I hardly use the feature, it is nice that it's there. Those that say the F4L is to slow are entitled to their opinion, I disagree as I've never been let down in any situation I've used it in. To me the 2 lenses are apples and oranges in real world photography. Here's a shot with the 70-300.

That race car pic closed the deal for me and I bought the ef 70-300 IS. I just started building a budget DSLR system and didnt want to blow my lens budget on a telezoom. The money I saved will be spent on some decent prime lenses such as the Sigma 30 1.4 and/or the EF 50 1.4, which will see more use.

I have not used either lens, however, I do own the 70-200 f2.8 and I would imagine that the f4 version would surpass the 70-300. That is not to say the 70-300 is not a great lens for the money, just a little slow.

 

I would look at the 55-250mm. I don't really know anything about the lens but in my experience that zoom range is more usefull on a cropped camera. It is also slow (that is OK if you shoot outdoors or in good light in general) and I am not sure if its IQ would be up to snuff.

 

Beyond that I would echo the remarks of the wise Bob Atkins.

 

Jason

If you shoot primarily INDOOR handheld images with NO subject motion and no flash then IS is extremely useful. For the other 95% of images shot by 95% of people a non-IS lens is just fine. In this case the non-IS lens has superior optical performance which is much more worthwhile for many photographers.

 

 

Handholding a xx-200mm at f4 in daylight hours at ISO 100, not including dawn and dusk, is not a problem even if overcast. If you need greater depth of field, or it does get dark, then it does become necessary to choose faster ISO settings. Don't forget that many of the popular IS lenses are f5.6 so you are actually only gaining 2 stops of slower shutter speed options for still subjects. With moving subjects an f4 lens is still "faster" than an f5.6 lens whether the f5.6 has IS or not.

 

 

In the case of the nice race car image it is not actually sharp since there is a lot of motion blur visible throughout the image. So a blurry shot with the 70-300 IS lens could look as good as a blurry shot with a non-IS 70-200/f4 L. If you were to compare sharp images from both, the f4 L will be significantly sharper with better colour rendition and contrast.

I have no doubt that 70-200 L non-IS is a superior lens. However, since I dont see myself carrying a tripod, the added 100mm focal length, having seen that race car pic, and these attached, I see the 70-300 as a great compromise especially when shooting at the long end of the focal range handheld.<div></div>

And another.....<div></div>

Just for comparison here is another race photo, this one was taken with the 70-200F4L.

Richard,

is the micro-motor usm on the 70-300 able to keep up with the ALMS race cars well? or is the ring-usm on the 70-200 F4L IS better suited for the task?

 

Ive been to ALMS @ Lime Rock the last couple years with a 28-135IS which has ring USM which seems like it is needed as fast as the cars are going.

 

If the 70-300 had ring usm i would have bought it a while ago, that it does not always gives me concerns about buying it.

The ALMS shot with the 70-200/4 L happens to have almost no motion blur so it biases the shot a bit, but do you notice how much better this image looks than the one of the Acura taken with the optically inferior IS lens.

 

 

The dolphin and whale shots are the typical shots that people think they need IS for when in fact it does absolutely nothing. They are shot in full sun so you are getting shutter speeds fast enough that not only manage to freeze the water but also happen to freeze any motion of the camera and lens! A 70-200/4 L in this same situation does not need a tripod. Even a 400/5.6 in this situation could easily be handheld.

You'd be amazed what can be accomplished with the skillful use of IS. If you know you want to shoot handheld, go with the IS for tele-zoom. However, if you're willing to use a tripod and/or you're shooting moving objects (where the IS won't do you much good), the 70-200 is going to be a much better lens. If the 70-200 doesn't have enough reach for you, use it with a Canon 1.4x teleconverter, and the IQ will still be better. I have the older 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, and it's my weakest lens (although it can sometimes grab a remarkably sharp shot if it's in the right mood). The 100-400L is on my wish list.

 

Regarding the speed of the lens: I've never felt limited by an f/4 lens either.

Adam, I find the keeper rate between the 2 lenses is the same. The 70-300 when used is servo mode will give you plenty of focusing speed to keep up with the cars....see you at Lime Rock in July!

 

John, I don't know why you are calling one shot optically inferior. The Acura shot is not in great light where the Porsche shot has better sun angle, it has nothing to do with the lens. The speeds of the cars are about the same with the same motion blur. If you saw the 400 keepers I have from the race weekend lumped together you would not be able to tell what lens was used for the photographs. The L lens produced as many stinkers as good ones, as did the IS lens.

 

I've used the 1.4 converter with the L lens, it slows the focusing down too much and in real world photography (not pixel peeping) I found the IS lens to be better then the 1.4/L combo.

 

Just my humble opinions!

The intent on posting the whale and dolphin shots was to show that the 70-300 is not a bad lens, even at full extension. Nothing to do with IS. Nor did I intend to say that it was at par to the L lens. Also, its not the 75-300 f4 so a weak 75-300 has no bearing here.

 

More value can be had from this thread if you would honor us with a critique on the quality of the optics specifically on the whale and dolphin shots? Sharpness? Color? Contrast? Those pics are unaltered.

 

Does it suck?

 

A great (but not excellent) lens plus a few extras is a viable alternative for a lot of people.

 

/bing

Image quality ? the 70-200 mm F4 L wins it by a country mile.

Here is a link to the Photozone Canon lens test page, if you look at the IQ charts of the lenses in question you will not see all that much variation, in some cases you will be surprised at the results. The 70-200L lens with converter does not match the IQ of the 70-300IS lens on this website. The 70-300 IQ is also similar to the 100-400 IQ according to the charts listed here. With my hands on experience of all these lenses I truly don't understand why the 70-300 is dismissed by so many people, it is a fine piece of equipment.

 

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests

Thanks for you comments, folks. I'm still torn between the better IQ of the 70-200/4 vs. the "IS" feature of the-not all that bad-70-300. If the tripod is crucial to the success of the better IQ of the 70-200/4 lens, I'm just not sure that I want to lug one of those around everywhere I go.

Still thinking.....

 

Bob

Its a tough choice. I went with the "not so bad" 70-300 IS because I knew I will need it for indoor-kiddie-concert-recital-graduation-tripod-is-not-an-option shots. In my case, these are usually made in "far and away" fairly lit situations.

 

Now if I were buying the lens purely for artistic pursuits, the L would have my money. Best of luck!

 

/bing

bing, I'm leaning in your direction. Looking more like the 70-300 right now. Thanks

<p>I just placed my order for the 70-200 F4 IS. (I know you were comparing to the non IS)<br>

Like others have said, the image quality difference is huge! Look at the color fringe on the first posted (race car) photo, you can tell it was taken with the 70-300 without even asking.<br>

I found my cheap 28-135mm to offer higher IQ then the 70-300 I tried on my body.<br>

In any case, you might find this helpful:<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2&LensComp=358&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=2">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2&LensComp=358&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=4&API=2</a></p>