70-200 f4.0L vs. New 70-300 f4-5.6 IS

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

I own a Canon 20d and I'd like opinions on whether to buy the 70-200

f4L or the New 70-300 f4-5.6 IS. I intend to take advantage of the

triple rebate by buying the 17-40 f4L and the Speedlite 580EX and

one of the fore-mentioned lenses.

Obviously, I'd like the to have the quality of the 70-200 f4L but I

also like the reach of the 70-300 especially with the IS.

I currently have the 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS and the 50 f1.8 and am very

happy with both... especially the clearness of the 50 f1.8.

I am not unhappy with the 28-135 since it is a fine all-around lens

that produces OK photos.

My intended use of the 70-200 or the 70-300 would be mainly daylight

sporting events with an occaisional indoor sports event (of course

using the 580EX, optionally). And I'd also like to get into some

wildlife shooting. I've heard and read that the New 70-300 has

excellent glass, almost as good as the 70-200 f4L. I know it can't

be as good, but if it's at all close to the 70-200, especially if

the 70-300 with the IS would provide more keepers, I might be swayed

to the New 70-300. The prices are within $10 of each other, too.

Just to muddy the water a little more... I was also considering the

200 f2.8L, but I think I want the versitility of the zoom.

Everyone, please give me your thoughts. And I'd sure like to hear

from Bob Atkins and his latest thoughts on the New 70-300. Thanks

in Advance.

[mcgarity]

You might want to consider the 70-200mm f4L and EF 1.4 TC combo. Optically thats an excellent pair and it gives you the range you are looking for, albeit without IS.

[bobatkins]

I'd get the 70-300IS, but that's just me. In fact I have the 70-300IS.

 

Some people are put off by it not being an "L" lens, not having a real ring USM motor, not having FTMF, having a rotating front element, not being white, not having a red stripe and not having a tripod mount. I wasn't.

 

To me the 70-300IS is a more useful lens. Optically it's good enough that optical issues aren't really a concern to me. I can't tell you which would give higher MTF numbers when bolted down to an optical bench, but those numbers wouldn't influence me much anyway.

 

The 70-200/4L is excellent and feels like a better built lens, but the 70-300IS is better suited to my photography and that's all that really counts for me.

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Bob,

 

Thanks for quick and 'Earthy' response. I was really hoping for your answer.

 

Thanks Again.

 

//Chuck

[bobatkins]

Note that I'm just saying the 70-300IS is right for me. There are other people who'd be happier with the 70-200/4L. There's no "right" choice here and both are, in their own ways, very good lenses.

[paul -]

<i>"I intend to take advantage of the triple rebate by buying the 17-40 f4L and the Speedlite 580EX and one of the fore-mentioned lenses."</i><P>Chuck, read the fine print on the rebate form, directly above the Speedlite models. While the 580EX is eligible for a $20 rebate,<br><i>"Double and Triple awards are not applicable for items listed below nor do they qualify the eligible items listed above."</i><p>2 qualifying lenses plus the 580EX will get you double rebates on the 2 lenses, plus a $20 rebate for the 580EX.

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Paul,

 

Thank you so much for pointing that out. I can't believe I overlooked that. There it is in BOLD print, too!

 

Well, it's back to more 'consideration mode' again.

 

Thanks.

 

//Chuck

[jim_larson1]

<i>Some people are put off by it not being an "L" lens, not having a real ring USM motor, not having FTMF, having a rotating front element, not being white, not having a red stripe and not having a tripod mount. I wasn't. </i>

<p>

That is not what puts me off. What puts me off is that the lens costs the same as a lens that <b>does</b> have all this stuff.<P> (grin)

<p>

Of course. . .that is apples and oranges, since the non-L has longer reach and IS. I have the 1.4TC for my 70-200/4L . . .and I have been quite with the results.

<p> But honestly. . .I *have* in fact lost shots because of the lack of IS.. . .in bright daylight I am fine. . but if the light goes dim. . .yeesh!<p>And last I looked the 70-200/4L was actually more like $75 cheaper than the IS lens.<P>So . . .I have the 70-200/4L. Would I ever give it up? NO WAY! Would I ever get the 70-300/IS. . .I would consider it. The 100-400/5.6L-IS is MIGHTY expensive. The 70-300/DO-IS is over $1000. . and has optical issues. For 300mm. . .under $1000. . .this lens may well be the way to go.

[pto189]

I sold my 70-200 f/4L yesterday because I didn't have a chance to use it. It has almost perfect built and optic quality I look for. The down side is the lack of IS and being while. (It is light grey indeed.) I don't mind my 300 f/4L IS being while because I don't carry around that lens. But I don't feel comfortable to hang on my neck a back camera with a white lens. On top of that, I need the long end of this lens, 100-200. When the sky turns dim, I was out of luck without a tripod. I think my 24-70, 100 Macro and 300 f/4L IS should take care most of the shots I need.<p>

I think Jim is right, and so is Bob. The 70-200 f/4L is a fine lens while the 70-300 is a useful lens. If you look for a lens that you'll love while holding on it, buy the 70-200. On the other hand, if you want a lens that can record your unforgettable moments with your love ones, buy the 70-300. I cannot make up my mind to order the 70-300 because I still had a bad memory of the 75-300 IS that I bought then returned it. By choosing the 70-300, I have to give up several things that I love: Ring USM, FTMF, and fixed front element, but it's shorter, black, and with IS. I think I need to try at a local camera store to get the true feeling.<p>

Just like the pair 24-70 and 24-105, you cannot have both in either lens: 70-200 f/4L or 70-300 IS. Yakim said the solution is buying the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Well, it's white, long, big, heavy, and worst of all, it's $1699. Sigh!

[mark u]

I think you'd struggle to get action stopping shutter speeds at indoor events with f/5.6 or even f/4 unless you are certain that you would be allowed to use flash (it's often banned because it upsets the competitors) and would be close enough to be within range. You might even struggle somewhat outdoors on an overcast winter day. I advise people intending to shoot indoor sport to go with f/2 or faster USM prime lenses and get a position close to the action (200mm f/1.8s are big and heavy and rare and expensive on the second hand market!), although you can get away with f/2.8 if the lighting is good enough for TV broadcasts.

 

So long as you understand the limitations, I think you'd probably get more out of the 70-300 (partly because its dimensions fit easier into most camera bags so you are much more likely to have it with you). Be sure to add the hood.

[bobatkins]

Strictly for stopping indoor sports action your best bet (assuming you don't have a spare $4000) might be the 135/2L. On a 20D it has the FOV of a 216mm lens on a full frame camera.

 

If you can live without zoom, it's about as fast as you can go without getting the 200/1.8 (always assuming you could find one anyway). You can get a new one for under $900.

[steve santikarn]

I have both lenses that you are considering and each have their strength. But for wild life I would say the extra 100 mm and the IS should make the 70-300 a better choice for you. Here's a photo taken with the 70-300 IS inside a vehicle in a safari park, in this situation the IS effectively cancels the engine vibrations where the L lens would be blurred.I find IS useful for taking photos while in a boat also (most of my bird photos on this site were taken while I was on a moving boat.<div></div>

[steve santikarn]

Chuck,

In case you don't take wild life photos from inside a vehicle (like I prefer to do, because most of the time you can get closer to them that way) then I also find the IS useful because it saves you from having to lug around a tripod in the fields.

Too bad Canon did not make the purchase decision easier for the consumers by lowering the price of the 70-300 IS by a couple of hundred dollars, it would be a no-brainer decesion then.

[skip hansen]

I just added the new 70-300 lens to my bag a couple of days ago. Simply put, depending on your applications, the "IS" function more than makes up for the lack of "L" glass...I've used it for 3 days now and am extremely happy with it (on my 20d). Skip

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Are the comments so far are greatly appreciated.

What's the consensus for the 200mm f2.8L II for indoor sports?

Also, are all these helpful comments about low light indoor sports and my need for f2.0 and f1.8 lenses assuming that my ISO setting is 100... or is it possible, from your actual experience, to use a long f2.8 lens for indoor sports by jacking up the ISO to maybe 400, 800 or even 1600. My experience, so far, with the 20d is that I don't see any noise all the way to 800 and I get acceptable photos at 1600.

I was hoping to find something for less than $1000 that was longer than 135mm. I've seen alot of good reviews for the 200mm f2.8L II, but if it's borderline for indoor sports even at higher ISOs then I guess I've got to wait.

Any other thoughts will be appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

//Chuck

[aaron_lam]

I went from the 75-300 IS to the 70-200 f4 to the 70-300 DO to the 200 f2.8 to the 70-200 f2.8 to the 70-200 f2.8 IS.

 

I have tried almost all of them. It really is give or take with these telephoto lenses. The 70-200 IS gives you the best image quality and IS. It is very expensive but it is my only telephoto lens.

 

The 200 2.8 is a great, cheaper alternative but without IS, it makes indoor and low light photography really hard... even with ISO jacking. But it is a nice discreet black and paired with a monopod, can make low light sports very possible. I don't think you hear too much about this lens b/c most people head to the 70-200 f2.8 flavor. I did find that shooting moving subjects with a prime is harder at the telephoto end than at shorter focal lengths (i.e. more distance to cover with your own legs).

 

The 75-300 IS and 70-300 DO were just okay in image quality compared to the L lenses (duh). They were great for landscape but not as good with portraits or sports (focus didn't track fast enough and hard to use in low light).

 

The 70-200 f4 is probably the best compromise of everything. With IS, this would be a great lens. It is easier to handhold as it is lighter. Image quality is great. Just not fast enought. Just no IS. Just wish it was black.

 

Can't have everything... unfortunately.

 

 

aaron

[kiestphoto]

The 200/2.8L works very nicely indoors at 1600 in a dimley lit gym, but I think it is too long

for most indoor work. I normally use a 135/2.8 for indoor sports, or 70-200/2.8L IS or

50/1.8. This is for volleyball and basketball with good access.

[qtluong]

My 70-200/2.8L IS isn't that great optically. In fact, my new 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS matches its performance (as measured by MTF 50), although many people here will tell you that this can't be. Of course, the 2.8 lens is 2 stops faster, has considerably better autofocus, and is compatible with the Canon teleconverters. I haven't used the 70-200/4L personally, but I suspect it would share characteristics with the 2.8. Given the choice personally, I would not hesitate to buy the 70-300 for the extra reach and IS.

<a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/">Terra Galleria Photography</a>.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>I'd get the 70-300IS, but that's just me. </i> </p>

<p> Count me in as well. <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EBP8">I recently decided to give this one a try</a>. The 200/2.8 is a super lens but low light is a problem. Either than that it's nothing short of perfect. The 70-200/2.8 IS was financially out of my reach.</p>

<p> <i>Well, it's back to more 'consideration mode' again. </i> </p>

<p> Just add the 50/1.4 and you're all set.</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[chris76]

For me its a trade-off between the extra reach and IS or the quality. As I have the L bug I got 70-200L F4 last week and used it for the first time this weekend. I can only say that this is up there in terms of sharpness. I attached a shot cropped at 100% (Sharpened in PS)

 

Its a great lense. If you are dissapointed you will not struggle to sell it.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[chris76]

Sorry that pic was from my 17-40. Here is the right pick

[mark u]

Chuck - take a look at this exposure guide to understand just how dark some lighting is:

 

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

 

You'll be able to see that you could easily need an f/2 lens even shooting at high ISO indoors to stop motion (say 1/500th or better).

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Mark,

Thanks for the 'Exposure Guide'.

Even though I think I have a lot of 'feel' for available light photography and exposure guidelines, there's has been times that I get surprised when actually trying to 'get that photogragh'.

After I read and understand this 'Exposure Guide' I'm sure it will help me understand the mechanics much better. Thanks for the info.

 

//Chuck

[iori]

The appeal of the 70-200/4 is as a walk-about outdoor lens. Any indoor/night-time concert or sports photography, and you'd want the 2.8/IS, which is what I needed and eventually bought. If the 70-300/IS is as sharp as the samples that I've seen, the 70-200/4 would seem a less ideal walk-about telephoto because it lacks the IS. The benefit of a walk-about lens is in the ability to handhold shots under a reasonably wide range of light conditions. While the f/4 may be a stop wider, the 70-200/4 will obviously be more susceptible (particularly at full tele extension or with a tele-converter) to hand shaking because it lacks the IS. All that being said, if I were in the market for a walk-about tele zoom, I'd be comparing the 70-300/IS to the compact DO to replace my ancient 75-300/IS.