75-300 IS compared to 70-200 L4

[monica_stein]

So, I have the 75-300 IS that I'm pretty happy with. A friend is selling his 70-200 L4. Is it

worth a few bucks to virtually duplicate a lens I already have? Is it possible I would be

happy enough with the results to shell out a few hundred bucks? Appreciate any insights!

[andy_van_eynde]

Which version of the 75-300IS do you own? The new and improved one or not?

 

If you do not know just mention how old it is.

[andy_van_eynde]

"The Canon EF70-300/4-5.6 IS USM is the replacement for the EF75-300/4-5.6 IS USM"

 

so it is the old one!

 

Most people like the 70-200f4L above that older EF 75-300 Is.

 

The new version is optically much better and for most people not worth it to replace it with the EF70-200f4L.

 

Have the 70-200f4L and am very pleased with it.

 

But at that point they only had your EF 75-300...and even then I was doubting between these two.

 

With their current lineup I might have chosen that new EF70-300 above the 70-200f4L because it is optically already very good and has the extra range and IS (also less attractive to thieves than a white lens).

 

Possitive thing about the 70-200f4L: build very well, optically a gem (for a zoom), parts all move internally.

[j.kivekas]

I've had a range of Canon lenses and today I own e.g. EF70-200/2.8 L IS USM GTX TI Superhypermega.... I still think that the EF 75-300/3.5-5.6 IS USM has probably been the lense with most value for money. Yes, it was soft at the long end but the IS feature made it really practical. The photos in REAL LIFE were very good. The longer the lense the more the outcome is about stabilising the platform rather than optical quality. However, I've have tried the EF70-200/4 L and I must say it is optically very good lense. If I was to choose between the two, I'd very carefully think my own photography profile. Questions like:<br>

- The extra 100 mm - do I need it?<br>

- How often am I carrying a tripod with me?<br>

- Do I use it more indoors/outdoors - for what?<br>

- How long am I going to keep the lense (EF70-200 is virtually forever, the IS is not)?<br>

- Do I "shoot" people? - Softness is not a bad thing then.<br>

- Do I use Photoshop or unsharp mask frequently or do I want my photos be ready straight out of camera (the softness of lense is like an low pass filter which can often be effectively resharpened with unsharp mask).<br>

- Panning - the IS in question - It's instructed that the IS is turned OFF for panned shots. Well, I used it mostly ON in motorsport shooting and really it wasn't a big problem. May be every 50th shot was distorted because the IS had moved back to zero line durign the exposure. With fast rotation, like small bird flying close by, definitely do not use the IS.<p>

My own solution was that I went for the EF70-200/2.8 L IS because it was tool for earning. I don't think I would have seen the trouble for f/4-version. Did I sell more photos because of the f/2.8 - no, frankly, I don't think so.

[awindsor]

Depends on what a few bucks is and how satisfied you are with the 75-300IS.

 

The 70-200/4L is a substantially better lens. I have one and I love it. You do lose the 200mm-300mm range (though I carry a Canon 1.4x extender and the 70-200/4L + 1.4x extender is much better at 280mm than the 75-300 is at 300mm). I had the 75-300 non-IS before and was never satisfied with the images at the long end. Provided you stop down the 75-300 does a creditable job in the range 75-200 but the 70-200/4L is better at each focal length and substantially so if you shoot wide open. The 70-200/4L does not have IS.

 

Here are the photozone reviews

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4/index.htm

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_75300_456is/index.htm

[m_barbu1]

Do you find yourself shooting in the 200-300mm range more often than 75-200mm or vice versa? Do you find yourself shooting in low light often? Which of the two concerns is more important to you? The former is a vote for your current lens. The latter is a vote for the f/4L one.

[pto189]

It depends on how much you will pay your friend for the 70-200 f/4L. If you're happy with the current 75-300 IS, you don't need the 70-200 f/4L though it's an outstanding lens in optic and build quality. It also depends on your shooting style. The 70-200 doesn't have IS. I think you will be happier if you can sell your current 75-300 IS and buy the new 70-300 IS.

[iori]

I also have the 75-300IS, and am addicted to Image Stabilization as a result. I believe it to be a necessity at longer tele ranges. For that reason, I sprang for the 70-200 2.8/IS. The 75-300 continues to be my travel tele zoom lens of choice, but the 70-200 comes out whenever I'm doing serious photography such as indoor concerts or motorsports.

 

Since the 75-300 does a pretty adequate job up to 200mm, and it has IS, the only benefit I see with your getting the 70-200/4 is the non-rotating front lens element (makes use of the polarizer much easier), the faster and more predictable auto focus, the compatibility with Canon's lens extenders, and the ability to manually fine-tune focus in auto-focus mode. Unless you do a lot of action photography, I wouldn't view these as worth spending additional money on.

 

Keep in mind too that the 70-200 uses an odd 67mm size filter (which I believe it shares only with the 24-85 zoom in Canon's lens lineup), which may be an additional cost item for you. My current L zooms (17-40, 24-105, 70-200) all share the same 77mm filters.

[monica_stein]

EXCELLENT INPUT! Thank you so much for the information and thoughts. If the price is

right it might be worth it to have a few other options. I do find that I use the whole range

(thus enjoy the extra 200-300) but I haven't been wild about the results on actions shots

or in low light. Very glad I found this forum with, clearly, knowledgeable individuals!

[andy_van_eynde]

To comment on Iori.

One of the reasons I bought the EF70-200f4L and not the previous version of that EF75-300IS is that it has the same filter size as my EF-s 17-85.

 

So far I did not miss having a IS system on it.

 

Only donwside if you ask me (except that whit colour if you do not want to attract attention)is the lenght of the lens when you want to put it in your bag...espacially when it it still attached to the body!

Bought a new bag so that I was able to do this (20d + 70-200f4L = about 24cm)

[iori]

>>I do find that I use the whole range (thus enjoy the extra 200-300) but I haven't been wild about the results on actions shots or in low light.

 

Well, getting the 70-200/4 won't help you there, unless you mounted a 1.4x extender, which will really slow-down the lens, as you will then be at f/5.6 wide open. You'll definitely need IS at that point. You should try out that set-up before you spend money on it.