Which lens? 70-300IS USM or 70-200 F4 USM?

[chrisjb]

I also agree a monopod can be invaluable :)

[chrisjb]

I also agree that a monopod can be invaluable :)

[colinsouthern]

"Peruse as you like. And critique, if that's what makes you feel better."

 

I have absolutely no wish what-so-ever to critique your work. I have no wish what-so-ever to have anything to do with you. My biggest wish right now is that you desist your stalker like obsession with my postings and approach to photography and just leave me alone. Period.

 

I call things as I see them - many thank me for it - some don't agree with it - ALL of them are big enough and ugly enough to decide what advice they want to follow and who they want to believe - NONE of them apart from you troll through previous posts I've made cutting and pasting things out of context and re-interpreting things to suit their own purposes.

 

You obviously don't like me, nor what I write but - as pointed out before - I contribute my time here to help others, not to meet with your expectations. I set high standards in every aspect of my photography, and I make no apologies for offering that perspective to others for them to consider as an option along with all other input.

[robert_thommes]

Chris JB,

I should have mentioned that I am in the habit of using a monopod quite a bit lately, just not the more cumbersome tripod. Still, I feel that the IS of the 70-300 would give that lens the advantage over the other; and would not require that I use one -pod or other to get decent results. And yes, I do have one of those lenses already. But I was asking this question (the way I did)just to see if I

might gain anything really significant in the IQ department by parting with the 70-300 and acquiring a 70-200 f4 instead. I can't even afford the 70-200 F4 "IS" version. So that's out completely. I'm thinking that the IS of my current lens would win out over what seems like only marginal IQ improvement of the 70-200.

[William Michael]

David:

 

I dunno, and even if I did know, I wouldn`t leave this site, as it is far too interesting.

 

WW

[richard_martin10]

Colin, Did you see the link under my post? That shot was at 300mm, it doesn't look soft to me. I also have the 70-200 F4L and it is quite similar in performance, perhaps at the race tracks where I use them more often then anywhere else, the motion of the cars negates any slight advantage the L lens has. I was also under the impression that the F4L is not weather proof.

[peter_rowe]

I think I can help a little having been faced with this problem myself.

 

I had the 70-200 F4 (non-IS) for a number of years but I found it difficult to get the best from handheld so I did not find myself using it so much - it often just sat in my bag. This lens needs a lot of light - at 200mm you need to be at 1/250th+ to get good shots and 1/500th to do it's best. So handheld indoors is difficult. It does not come with a tripod mount. I had another IS lens so I bought the 70-300m IS and found it to be exceptional - after extensive testing I can see no difference in the IQ between them. I would often read about the superior L contrast and satuartion so I would run out and test (again) - but find no difference (I do always use a hood). An English (I'm Irish) photographer friend of mine who is a very good photography could not see any differences either onscreen or on 13"x19" prints. That said the IS on the 70-300mm is nothing short of amazing. With it I can take shots at 1/60th and have them come out great. I've gone from worrying if the shot will comne out to getting keepers literally every time. The extra 300mm is notably too. The 70-200mm F4 is built like a tank and it has very fast USM focusing and FTM so that is where it really wins. So I sold the 70-200mm F4 and kept the 70-300mm IS. Knowing what I know now I would day this - if you want a really sharp lens lens but you are satisfied with a consumer grade lens build, you don't mind the slower focus, and the rotating front, then it is hard to beat the 70-300mm for the price (it's black too). If you need something more robust and rugged (if you are doing workshops say) and valued the fast focus and non-rotating front then I would strongly recommend that that save up for the IS version of the 70-200 F4 (the version I had was not weather sealed thought and it is an off-white colour which can draw attention). The IS really is that good - I think you will not get the best from the "L" unless you use a tripod if you don't have the IS. I find myself using the 70-300mm far more now than I ever did the 70-200mm F4 and I am getting far more keepers.

 

Good luck!

[bob_king2]

Hi Robert

 

What an interesting thread! As a friend of mine said, opinions are like bums - everybody's got one! Having said that, I believe diverse opinions are good as they look at situations from different viewpoints and allow the OP to think more about the issue raised.

 

I have the 70-300IS lens as well as the 70-200 f/2.8 ISL. I love the L but we all know how big, heavy and conspicuous it is. I bought it for IQ and low light ability and I often use it with a 1.4X teleconverter. If I want to travel light I use the 70-300IS. I would have preferred the 70-200 f/4ISL but didn't have the funds so I opted for the 70-300IS. I find that this lens can hold its own against the L in many situations - not as good but not that far away either.

 

I own 3 tripods and use all of them but for my style of shooting I find IS invaluable and I wouldn't buy a tele lens without IS that I intended to handhold much of the time.

 

My opinion? If your intended use is outdoors and handheld I would go with an IS lens. If you can afford it go for the IS version of the 70-200 f/4 with 1.4x. If not, give the 70-300IS a try. BTW My son has the 70-200 f/4 non IS - a great lens with great IQ but harder to handhold effectively than my 70-300IS.

 

 

BTW, I often use a Panansonic TZ3 - one of those small sensor, compact point and shoots (cough, cough). I find I can take some very satisfying photographs with it. Why? Because its always either in my pocket or in its little bag over my shoulder. I find photographic events are all around me. A pro photographer that I know won a national photographic award for a photo she took on her Fuji compact. She got the shot because she had the Fuji with her, the pro gear was somewhere else. If I want top image quality I get out my Mamiya RB67 and shoot film. Photography is full of compromises. Its up to you to decide which ones you want to accept at a given point of time. My requirements and their inherent compromises change from day to day, even hour by hour.

 

Cheers, Bob

[robert_thommes]

Thanks, Bob. I'll take your remarks as another vote for the 70-300 zoom. That's right where I am on this at present. And..I too have a small Panasonic camera. The FZ1. I think it's a pretty good go-everywhere camera, too.

[matthias_meixner2]

Here is a comparison of the two combinations: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1&LensComp=104&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=5&API=0

 

Seems like the 70-200+TC is the better combination as long as you do not need IS.