EF 75-300 IS vs EF 70-200/4 L

[pablo_s]

Hi. I know this has been discussed to death, but I have several

concrete questions that I haven't seen addressed before:

 

1) How does distortion (barrel/pincusion) on these two lenses

compare? I like to shoot cityscapes where this can be an important

consideration.

 

2) How do the two lenses compare for candid photography (portraits)?

I think the 75-300 has the edge since it's not so noticeable and IS

can easily make the difference here.

 

3) How does autofocus in tricky situations compare? (low light, low

contrast subject, moving subject). I know the 70-200 has better

autofocus, the question is: is the difference so big that you'll

miss much more shots with the 75-300?

 

For reference I would be using these lenses on a D Rebel. 1) and 2)

will likely be my main uses, and the 200-300 range doesn't seem so

relevant in either situation. I don't shoot sports nor wildlife,

unless urban squirrels and ducks qualify as wildlife :).

 

Thanks for your help!

 

Pablo

[alexander_janke]

I cannot comment on 2), but 1) the 75-300 IS displays noticable distortion especially on the long end (at least my sample does) and 3) AF is sloooow even in adequate lighting conditions. I have no doubt that the 70-200 is in a completely different league here with its internal focusing design and ring USM.

[Greg M]

70-200 f4L is GREAT on the Digital Rebel. The AF difference between it and the 75-300 is substantial in any light or situation you'd want to pick. I went to Arlington Camera a couple of months ago to get a 75-300 & got the 70-200 f4L instead. If you went somewhere first and tried the two side by side you'd see there's no comparison, but the 75-300 is obviously a popular lens that you couldn't find new anywhere a couple of months ago. At a price so close to the 70-200 f4L I can't see why. If having a lens that will be ETTL-II compatible is important to you, you want the 70-200 is and the 75-300 isn't. That may be looking down the road a bit, but at this price level you should think about it.

[david_lau3]

I have the 75-300 IS but I really hate it after it spoiled my photo opportunity in the Yellowstone by returning me with marginal quality photos. It has zoom creep and the focusing speed is also marginal but IS does work very well. Now I have the 85/1.8, 200/2.8L and 1.4X converter instead. The difference in image quality is so significant that I will never use the 75-300 again.

 

I do not have the 70-200/4 L but based on what I heard it is a great lens with performance close to the prime lenses. I hope the new Canon 70-300/4.5-5.6 DO is nuch better but it is much more expensive too.

[bobatkins]

It depends on what you want. I've owned and used both lenses. The 75-300IS is more versatile and convenient to use, but the 70-200 is sharper. If you're looking for the sharpest possible images, then the 70-200 might be the better route. If you're looking for a lens that can be handheld at slower speeds, is less conspicuous and that will go out to 300mm, the 75-300IS might suit you better.

<p>

Sharpness isn't the only criterion for lens choice, though it can be a major one. Distortion isn't so much of an issue for digital as it is for film since pretty easy to correct in post-exposure digital processing. Af on the 70-200 is certainly faster than on the 75-300.

<p>

I ended up selling the 70-200/4 and keeping the 75-300. It suited my needs better.

<p>

You might also think about the 28-135IS. On a digital Rebel 135mm is equivalent to 200mm on a full frame 35mm camera.

<p>

See <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html</a>

<p>

and <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/is.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/is.html</a>

[erb_duchenne]

I agree with Bob. My needs include IS, for which the 70-200 4L has none. The extra stops saved means a great deal. It's either soft lens... or soft from camera shake... usually the 75-300 IS wins!

[pablo_s]

Thanks all for your replies. I've used the 28-135 before (with a D30) so I know how useful IS can be. Now I'm looking for a different range though.

 

Re: distortion, I don't find it that easy to correct in postprocessing. May be I am missing something? I also don't want to spend a lot of PS time with every single picture I take, I'd rather be taking more pictures :).

 

Re: sharpness, at this moment I don't need the sharpest lens ever, but I'd like to get something that allows me to grow over time. Since I'll be using a tripod often, IS is important, but it's not everything.

 

How does sharpness of both lenses compare near 200mm? Is it necessary to stop down the 75-300 to get good results?

 

Still another possible combination at a similar price is the 85/1.8 prime together with the regular (non IS) 75-300. The 75-300 would be good for situation 1 (cityscapes), where I'd be using a tripod anyway and I can't zoom with my feet. The 85/1.8 would be ideal for situation 2 (candid portraiture). Another good thing about this combination is that both lenses have 58mm threads, just as the 18-55 EF-S I'm also getting. What do you think?

 

Thanks again, Pablo.