Canon 70-200mm f4L IS vs Canon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 DO IS

[michael_clayton1]

Hi,

 

I'm trying to decide between the above two lens' for my rebel xti. I've done a

search of the forums and found lots of information about each lens but nothing

really comparing them. They're about the same price US$1,200. The 70-200 lens

is slightly faster but the DO lens has a longer zoom. Also the DO lens is

quite a bit smaller (although no lighter I think). My other lens' are the 17-

40mm f4L and the 50mm f1.4 which are great so far.

 

I'm thinking about getting it for travel arount the states, Tahiti and europe

so I'm leaning towards the DO lens (because of the size and extra reach) but

the flare issues when shooting toward the sun with that lens concern me.

 

If anyone has any views on which one would be the right choice for me, I'd

appreciate it.

 

-Mike

 

PS. great site and forum - I'm learning a lot!

[uriah]

Witht the xti you'd have a 112-320 while using the 70-200. That would make it an awesome travel lens paired with a wide angle. I think the build on that lens is weatherproof as well. Don't quote me on that. I do know the 2.8 IS version is weathersealed.

 

I can't comment on the 70-300 since I've never used it.

[jwhite3.0]

Both lenses are very good travel lenses. 70-200mm f/4 IS has ~4-stop IS and 70-300mm has 3-stop IS. 70-200mm will be the better lens choice for lowlight situations at a constant f/4 throughout the zoom range + 4-stop IS. Image quality, bokeh, and sharpness, hands down goes to 70-200mm.

 

I was faced with a similar question two months ago and decided on the 70-200mm f/4 IS. It is weathersealed but your camera isn't so this feature might not be a deal maker or breaker for you.

 

For me, I can live with a 1.4X TC + 70-200mmm f/4 as it is long enough for most situations otherwise it is time to bring out the telephoto prime. If you don't want to buy or bring a TC and you think you might be shooting things at a distance then the 70-300mm could be ideal for you. Many people like the idea of the more compact 70-300mm and it is black. Therefore may or may not draw less attention to you and your bag of goodies.

 

As for flare on either lens, don't look at the sun and keep the hood on at all times.

 

Tahiti sounds like fun

[brucecyr]

Comments re: 70-300 DO you might find useful:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Ku37

[michael_clayton1]

Great. Thank you all very much for your responses.

 

I think the 70-200mm might be the one for me.

[John Crowe]

Do you really need IS? The Canon EF 70-200/4 L would get you the image quality and at half the price of the IS version. This would give you budget flexibility to add another more specific lens. For instance, you could add the Canon 1.4x converter and still likely outperform the 70-300. You could add a Canon 28/1.8 for those dull interior shots where a 70-300 would be too long, or you could add the much more affordable 28-135 IS in case you find a need for the IS option.

 

 

Weight is always a concern for travelling, not so much size, and the DO saves nothing in weight. Good luck!

[dan_roche]

I agree with John (above). IS virtually doubles the price of a lens. The 70-200 f/4L non-IS is an excellent lens and a really good value.

[rcox2]

If you can afford IS you should get it. If you're thinking abit an extender, get the 2.8.

 

This pic was 100mm 1/20 with IS:

[jwhite3.0]

I also agree with all of the posters in that the non-IS 70-200mm f/4 is the best lens value-wise. However, when traveling without a tripod as Mike might be doing IS comes in handy. If Mike plans on shooting mostly in good daylight then the non-IS version is the way to go.

 

However, when catching those early morning or dusk shots at the lowest ISO possible and without a tripod, image stabilization could be indispensable.

[mike_broderick]

If you're planning to travel around and use a 200mm lens without a tripod, IS is an excellent plan. You'll miss it if you don't have it.

 

Sounds like you have done your research and are presumably aware of the image quality differences between the lenses. Just a call you have to make on better image quality versus more compact size and longer reach. How often will you want to shoot at 300mm (480 on your XTi)? How often will you want to make a really large print where the better image quality of the shorter lens will be apparent?

 

Have you considered the 70-300 non-DO IS lens? Would replace these lenses and leave you with enough change to pay for an airline ticket to Europe if you buy at the right time!

 

One previous commenter said that weight was more important than bulk in traveling. I agree weight is important, but I don't discount the importance of saving space in your carry-on bag and keeping a lower profile (the 70-200/4 WILL attract attention).

 

Not what you asked, but I assume you've given some thought to storing your files during all this travel?

[mwaks]

I use the Canon 70-300DO as my main walk around lens. I very rarely get the reported bright light halos in real world shooting. If I wanted to create them on purpose as a test.....I would shoot the sun reflecting off of car chrome.

It may seem to be very long fully extended with the lens hood on, but still not the attention getter of the 70-200.

[pinks2000]

I have both lens, the 70-300 DO first, then later the 70-200 f4L IS. I have done a number

of "home " tests, and for the samples I have, there is no comparison. The 70-200 is hands

down much sharper. No comparison really. I have obtained very good shots with the

70-300, but side by side the 70-200 is a superior lens in image quality. Also the extra

100 mm reach of the 70-300 does not seen to really matter. Perhaps my reasoning is

wrong, but in all the tests I did, when you mag up the images from the 70-200 (taken at

200mm), to match the images from the 70-300 (taken at 300mm), the images from the

70-200 were still much sharper, even though magnified more. Basically a blurry image at

300mm is not as good as a sharp image at 200mm, and the 70-300mmDO does not

perform all that well at 300mm. The one way the 70-300 really benefits is that it is a very

low profile lens that people do not notice. Good to walk around town with.

[pbizarro]

For travel, I find IS to be very, but very useful. It can get you the shot. So to me, the option is clear.

 

I used to have the DO lens, which is a good one for travel; But what I always wanted was the 70-200 f/4 IS (I used to have the f/4 no-IS), so as soon as that one came out, I bought it. Do I miss the 300mm? Sometimes, perhaps. But the better handling and quality of the 70-200 f/4 IS is great.

[yakim_peled1]

1. You certainly need IS in a trip.

 

2. You certainly do not need f/2.8 in a trip. Too heavy.

 

3. IMHO the 70-300 IS DO is simply too expensive for what it gives. OTOH, the non-DO 70-300 IS can certainly be a consideration. As it is black it will attract a lot less attention and is a lot cheaper. You pay extra for build quality and AF speed but optics and IS are first rate.

 

4. In the end, the 70-200/4 IS L is a no-brainer if you can afford it.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[steve torelli]

IS is nice, it's main value is in lower light situations where it may allow you to get a shot at lower shutter speeds instead of bumping up the ISO. However, in the 70-200 f/4, as others have said, IS almost doubles the price of an already outstanding lens.

 

Like I said, IS is nice, it's not necessary, you may want to weigh the value of the 70-200 f/4 IS against the advantage of the less expensive version that will allow the purchase of other glass with the savings. Good luck.

[robin_sibson1]

Compactness (yet reasonably wide focal length range) now seems to be the only remaining attraction of the 70~300DO lens. Weight is similar to the 70~200/4L IS, but that has less coverage. If you want a reasonably inexpensive, reasonably light, optically good, but mechanically disappointing alternative, consider the 70~300 non-DO IS. I'd (reluctantly) consider a non-IS lens of up to 200mm focal length on a FF body, but not on a 1.6-factor body. I've just ordered a 70~200/4L IS myself, currently for use on a 20D, and as a lighter weight and faster alternative for part of the coverage of my 100~400. I'm going to be experimenting with the Extender 1.4x to see just how much I can get out of the new toy - if it works well in that combination, it must be another nail in the coffin of the 70~300DO, since then all that's left for the DO lens is compactness - not cheap, not light, and apparently not competitive optically, even if good enough to be useful.

[mark u]

The DO lens when locked at 70mm just meets the 4 inch length limitation placed by some stadia on lenses they will allow through the gates at sporting occasions.

[robin_sibson1]

Mark, you've just provided the perfect example of a niche product for any undergraduate needing it for a business studies essay!