What shall I get 50-200 f4 L or 70-300 IS usm

I have recently bought a 400D and find my old Sigma zooms aren't realy good

enough anymore. So I have been looking at either the Canon 55-200 f4 L or the

Canon 70-300 IS USM. I have read in a couple places that although the L lens is

better at the equivelent zoom setting it is not that much better and also that

because the IS in the 70-300mm lens help reduce camera shake this could make it

a better but for me compared with the non IS lens. I don't often use a tripod as

I can't carry too much so thought that the IS might be a better buy for me. I

wondered what peoples opinions were of the two lenses and of my reasoning.

John

Canon does not have a 55-200mm f4L. They did made a 50-200mm f3.5-4.5L long ago. It is a very good lens but you must willing to live with the loud and slow AF motor. They do made an excellent 70-200 f4L. There is also a 70-200 f4L IS for more money then the 70-300.

I shoot pj regularly with my Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus Lens, and usually it is always hand held. I do use a monopod for sporting events.

I am going to assume that you meant the 70-200 f4 L, because I haven't seen a 50-200. I went through the same debate about 6 months ago. I decided to purchase the 70-200 f4 L, based on reviews and price. I is a great lens and I am more than happy with it's sharpness wide open at 200mm. I use this lens for everything and have been successful with using a slow shutter speed (under 1/200) without a tripod. In fact other that long exposures, I haven't used a tripod. I bought it to shoot my son's soccer games and it worked great. In fact it has been a great all around lens. My vote 70-200 f4, unless you need the extra reach and have plenty of light. I've actually managed to shoot indoor basketball games with this lens. If you haven't visited this site check it out, it has great reviews of all the Canon lenses www.the-digital-picture.com. By the way the lens is on a 30D. Oh and one more thing, once you see "L" quality you will be addicted, I just spent the last six months saving for a 24-70mm 2.8 L lens.

Here's another vote for the EF 7-200/f:4L --fantastic lens, and waaaaaay better than the 70-300 in both build and image quality.

 

If you really need to get to 300mm, add the Canon EF Extender 1.4x (about 200 bucks new), which will almost get you there (280mm) without sacrificing image quality.

I vote any lens with IS. It will always be better, in more situations.

If you don't use a tripod I would go for IS especially if you often use the far end of your lens. I have the 70-300 IS. Strong and well built but a bit on the heavy side.

If you have access to a 50-200/3.5-4.5 L, go for it. It's an excellent lens. It's much smaler and lighter than any of the 70-200s, uses 58mm filters, and is black. I have one and a 70-200/2.8 which is superb.

I have the 70-300IS and have owned the 70-200/4. The 70-200 is not waaaaay better than the 70-300 optically. Maybe a little better. It is also lacking from 200 to 300. The build quality is decidedly better on the 70-200. The 70-300 is not at all bad, though. I bought the 70-300IS becuase of the IS and the improved image quality at 300 compared to the old 75-300IS which it replaced. The IS works great and the AF, though not in the same league as the 70-200, is adequate for most. If you don't like to use a tripod, I think you'd be very happy with the 70-300IS.

I think the choice between the two boils down to what you most value. The 70-200 has a better build, non-rotating front element comes with a hood, and has fast ring USM autofocus.

 

The 70-300 IS has IS and a 200-300 range, but worse build, with rotoating front element and no so fast micro USM autofocus. It is also smaller, but grows quite long when extended. The 70-200 uses internal zooming and therefore while bigger to start with does not change length.

I am a general assignment news photographer. Gear is a 20D (waiting for my 40D) Canon 10-22 3.5-4.5, Canon 24-70 2.8 L and a Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS with 1.4 extender. At one time, I did have a 70-300 IS and a Sigma 70-200 2.8 (I still have this one, but I don't use it.)

As far as the 70-300 goes, it's light enough - as compared to the L series 70-200 - that IS is really not that critical. Nice, but not essential. Image quality and AF speed, coupled with a much faster lens makes it no contest. Even the F4 70-200 with far superior optics and faster AF makes it a better choice than the 70-300, with or without the extender. If you are shooting an EFS camera body, remember that the multiplier is 1.6 so a 70-200 gives you an effective 112-320 anyway.