EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM VS EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

[paolo_p]

I searched this one up, and the only post out there looked like it was deleted.

 

Essentially these two are the same price..

I'm torn between the consistant f/4.0 and the IS

 

Which would you go for and why?

[m_barbu1]

Here you go: [<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FHSz&tag=">I Am Trying to Find a Telephoto Lens Around $500 (II)</a>]

[mark u]

I wouldn't get the 70-300 until Canon have fixed the problem with using it in portrait orientation that affects many samples of this lens.

[john20]

I haven't used the IS lens you are asking about. But, I have owned the 70-200 f4.0L. I sold it to get the 2.8 version for backgroud blur. I can honestly say the f4 is the best lens I have ever used. Image quality was just short of excellent! Even better than my 2.8. So, if you don't really need the IS, definately get the f4L. You won't be sorry.

 

John

[pto189]

Wait for the coming 70-200 f/4L IS. It's black and has the size and weight as the 70-200 f/4L. Best of all, it's only $1250.

[jon_austin]

No, it'll stay white like the original ...

[andrew robertson]

"Wait for the coming 70-200 f/4L IS. It's black and has the size and weight as the 70-200 f/

4L. Best of all, it's only $1250."

 

Uhh huh.

[ifeito]

Paolo,

 

If you need the 300 mm end then you need it and that's that. However with the 1.6 crop factor the 200 becomes the equivalent of a 320, so it may be long enough for you.

 

If you need the 300mm and are willing to buy a dedicated 300mm prime, then the 70-200 makes a lot of sense, and is a very nice lens.

 

Ignacio

[steve santikarn]

I had both and kept the 70-300 for its reach and IS (quality also). But now I am having intemittent quality problem that I didn't have when the lens was new. It seems that I am not the only one. There's is some movement in the lens barrel when zoomed out, I don't know if this might be the cause of occational blurriness. I'd wait and see.

[brent chadwell]

The 70-200 is sharper, faster at 200mm, has better bokeh, is built more sturdily, and has less flare and CA problems. Not to mention the problems with the 70-300 in portrait orientation. In my opinion, IS isn't necessary at 200mm very often, especially with the high ISO performance of Canon DSLRs. Go with the 70-200 f/4, you won't regret it.

[pto189]

<i>IS isn't necessary at 200mm.</i><p>

If IS isn't necessary at 200mm, at what focal length is IS necessary? If 200mm and f/4 is sufficient for a DSLR, should Canon stop selling the 70-200 f/2.8 IS?

[pbizarro]

Opinions vary. I'll keep my 70-300 DO until the 70-200 f/4 gets an IS upgrade.

 

I need IS on a telezoom, it makes ANY telezoom much more useful. Others may not agree, that's normal.

 

I have never used the 70-300 IS, so I can not comment. In the past, I had the 70-200 f/4, great lens at a good price. Probably better than the 70-300 DO, but as I said, I need the IS.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> Both lenses were tested <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html">PZ</a>. <b></b> </p>

<p> As you can see, both are optically excellent but each has it's distinctive pros and cons. I chose the 70-300 IS and am not going to get the 70-200/4 L as <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EsnE&tag=">IS lets you get pictures when the L won't</a>. For me, that was the final deciding factor. I had the 70-200/4 L, 200/2.8 L and 300/4 L in the past and came to the conclusion that IS is a feature I don't want to live without in long lenses. Naturally, YMMV. </p>

<p> The AF is on the slow side in low light (no IF, no ring-USM, no fast aperture) and build quality is simply awful IMHO - cheap plastic, length changes when you zoom/focus, front element is rotating etc. - but if you can't afford the 70-200/2.8 IS, this lens gets my recommendation.</p>

 

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[pjmeade]

I would recommend the 70-200/f4 any day. It's an excellent lens and gives excellent results. I've used it for portaits, landscapes, sports and for some birding. I've been delighted with the results in all of those.

 

If you want great quality, 300mm and IS; then get the 70-200/f4 and the 300/f4 IS. And all for about the price of the 70-200/2.8 IS. I,m busy saving for the 300/4 IS.

 

My 2p

 

Pete

[mark u]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Gg47&tag=

[andrew robertson]

I sold my 70-200 f/4L because I never used after getting the 135 f/2.8 SF. The 135 is

smaller, lighter, cheaper, sharper, the AF is just as fast, and it lets in another stop of light.

[lovcom_photo]

IS is not necessary at 200mm? Wow, what a statement!

 

You read the most peculiar things on the internet.

[lovcom_photo]

About the 70-300 lens....it is not a very good lens...it's cr@p IMHO.

 

Better to get the Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS....this lens is sharper, provides better color rendition, and better contrast....yes it is bigger and heavier, but it will provide much better image quality then the 70-300 dog lens.

 

As for the Canon 70-200 F4...it's a great lens, but you need 300mm so I woulde bypass it.

[paolo_p]

Thanks for the info people.. I think i've settled on the f/4.0L

 

As for the 100-400.. Way out of my price range.. If i were in that range i would have picked up the 70-200 f/2.8L IS..

[anesh]

I had the same dillema as you. I chose the 70-200mm f/4 and haven't looked back. It is a stunning performer and a huge leap in optical & build quality (non extending and non rotating). Just add a 1.4x converter and you have 448mm of zoom (on a non-FF camera).