75-300 vs. 70-200 for EOS Elan IIe

[arunarchi]

Here's my dilemma - when I'm ready foor it (maybe another year) which

one do I buy??

"Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS Image Stabilizer

USM Autofocus Lens"

 

or

 

"Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus Lens"

 

Its a question of whether I need the extra 200-300 range or is the

quality of L series too good to turn down - I'm an amateur

photographer and I like Nature photography.

 

Help me out guys

 

Arun

[richard thompson www.fotoz]

I've had both and stuck with the 70-200/4 L.

Others have had both and stuck with the 75-300 IS.

 

Its completely down to whether you want better image quality, or longer focal range.

 

I'm on the fence between the 70-200/4 L and the 70-300 DO at the moment!

[sravan]

I would suggest 70-200 f4. The 70 - 300 is not as good at the long end. If you can spring for it, go for the f2.8 model, With that you can add a 1.4x converter or 2x converter to get the long range "cheaply" without losing autofocus capability.

Also the 75-300 has zoom creep if it held at any angle other than perfect flat. I hate that really.

 

If you still want the 75-300, let me know. I can sell you my old one. I just bought 70-200 F2.8 L <b>IS</b> USM and it is great to use with the converted (2x) and i dont need the 75-300 anymore.

 

Remeber, going to the L series is costlier than just the lens. You will have to spring for a good filter set etc at the 77mm thread which is not very common in the consumer lenses and so most people would be buying their filter set with thier first L lens :)

[jim_larson1]

Only you can answer the "do I need 200-300".

 

As for the quality -You are getting what you pay for.

 

75-300/NON-IS =$175

 

75-300/IS = $425 => Yes, the is the 75-300/NON-IS with IS added

 

70-200/4L = $570

 

70-200/4L + 1.4TC = $840 => Makes the combination F5.6. Optically very, very good. Gets you to 280mm.

 

As for IS => When I shoot in broad daylight (not twilight or indoors), I typically see shutter speeds over 250 and for those shutter speeds, IS does not help significantly.

 

In low light conditions, or at night, I use a tripod. IS does help on a tripod, but you generally don't need IS when on a tripod.

[jbq]

I'll suggest the 70-200 as well (I have one and love it). The 75-300 is a $160 lens with added gizmos, but it remains a $160 lens optically. The image stabilizer in the 75-300 just compensates for the fact that you need to stop it down to get a decent image quality.

 

On the other hand the image stabilizer can help you get a bigger depth-of-field and/ more motion blur while hand-held (which may be a blessing or a curse).

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Only you can answer the following questions:</p>

 

<dl>

<dt>Do you need the 200-300 range?</dt>

<dd>Peronally, I went from a 100-300 zoom to a 300 prime because I found I was almost always using the zoom at its long end. So the 70-200 wouldn't be the right lens <em>for me</em>. But that's just me. What sort of nature photography do you do? Many nature photographers shoot animals which are small and/or far away and therefore need as long a lens as they can get.</dd>

 

<dt>Will IS be useful to you?</dt>

<dd>If you shoot handheld and your subjects are stationary, the answer is yes, IS will be useful. I take it you've never used a 300mm lens before; the first time you do, you will find yourself amazed by how much it magnifies the motion of your unsteady hands. And the first time you use IS, you will find yourself amazed by how it takes that jerky motion and makes it slow and gentle. On the other hand, if you prefer to use a decent tripod, then IS won't be useful to you; Canon recommends that IS be turned off on this lens when using a tripod, because it can actually <em>add</em> shake if there's none there to begin with.</dd>

 

<dt>How important is image quality?</dt>

<dd>No question, the 70-200 is the superior lens. How will you use your pictures? If you want to make 4x6" prints and post scans on your Web site, the 75-300 is perfectly adequate. If you want a 20x30" poster on the wall, the 70-200's superiority will be obvious. As you move up from 4x6" to 20x30", the limitations of the 75-300 will become apparent much earlier than the limitations of the 70-200. How picky are you? Some people would find an 8x12" from the 75-300 to be good enough; others would not.</dd>

</dl>

 

<p>The ideal solution, of course, would be a 70-300 f/4L IS USM, at a price comparable to either of these lenses - but such a lens doesn't exist, and even if Canon were to release one, it would certainly not come in at this price. So you'll have to prioritize and decide what's more important to you - IS and the extra range, or professional-quality optics.</p>

 

<p>You have about a year to make this decision, so that's plenty of time to think about it and read reviews and comments and opinions. If there's a camera store near you which rents lenses, see if you can rent one or both of these - or even any other lens in the same focal length range, so you can at least find out what focal lengths are useful to you and whether IS would be useful to you.</p>

[jay_.]

Here's the real crux: the the 75-300-IS is a slower, consumer-grade lens without FTM focusing and all but useless at 300mm making it basically a 75-200mm lens. The 70-200/4-L is faster, much better contructed, has the USM with FTM, and optically is in another universe by comparison. However if you are handholding both lenses at 200mm and shooting at shutter speeds below 1/250 you will get get less camera shake blur with the 75-300.

 

If you are really a nature photographer, then you use a tripod. Therefore there will be much less need for IS and its undeniable that the 70-200/4-L is better optically and will also allow you a modest increase in shutter speed to stop subject motion. Be aware though, that if you need/want 300mm you will need a 1.4x teleconverter, and also that a tripod collar is optional at about $125 for that lens. Personally I would look for a used 70-200/2.8-L, or get the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM with its matched 1.4x teleconverter. The extra stop will aid in manual focusing (brighter finder) and also give you a full shutter speed faster for stopping both camera shake and subject motion.

[John Crowe]

The 70-200 with 1.4x will likely optically outperform the 75-300 at 280mm. This "L" lens is in a totally different league and I would recommend it. Even though the IS lens may save 5% of your images your other 95% you could get with the 70-200 will be far superior in image quality. Good luck!

[yakim_peled1]

I have perfectitis terminalis in it's acute state. It's symptoms are that I can't buy anything but the best, even if it's more expensive (my wife hates me for this) and I can't recommend anything but the best. Now you can understand why I advise you to get the 70-200/4.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[asimh]

i have a IIe, a 70-200f4 lens, and often use it with a 1.4x II TC. love this combination! i think if you want more reach than that, to get truly better results, you will have to go prime.

[richard thompson www.fotoz]

A 70-300/4 L IS would be great Mr Canon !!!

 

I'd even be happy with a 70-300 /4-5.6 L IS. Can I suggest a filter size 67mm, weighing less than 1Kg, and Black finish.

 

I don't care if it extends to 350mm, just as long as it doesn't weigh a tonne. Get rid of the DO and put in nice L glass.

[harman_bajwa]

" ... when I'm ready foor it (maybe another year) which one do I buy..."

 

If you have a year, that is a lot of time to contemplate. Hang around this forum. Perhaps Canon will come out with newer alternatives by then, or maybe even the 75-300 or the 70-200 are discontinued by then.

 

Quality v/s Range: it is a never ending issue, and the lucky ones who do have both end up spending a lot on that front anyways :)

IMHO, If you have the budget the 70-200F4 + 1.4xTC combo is certainly one worth noting.

 

- Harman