Which one of these two lenses?

[alexander_c1]

Hi everyone.

 

I only need two more lenses to complete my kit. A telephoto and a ultra wide one. I just bought the 580EX II flash.

Right now I am looking at these two telephoto lenses. Which would you pick and why?

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=workaround.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=397663&is=USA

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=workaround.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=183198&is=USA

[alexander_c1]

The links didn't work.

 

Here is a description:

 

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus Lens

 

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens

[derrickdehaan]

The 70-200 is a superior lens in my opinion.

 

Derrick

[jason_hall5]

What will you be shooting with it and what is your intended output for?

[michaeljlawson]

What other lenses are in your kit and what type of photography will you be doing?

[geoffs1]

If you need f/4 and/or don't need IS then the 70-200. It is arguably a much sharper lens.

 

If you need the extra 100mm of focal-length, or if you'll be mostly shooting in enough light to stop down the a bit, but want to use slow shutter speeds (ex. photographing propeller airplanes) then the 70-300.

 

Just to get it over with early in the thread, I'll recommend that you save up and get the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS...

[geoffs1]

Jut to inject some data into the discussion, here at the Photozone.de reviews of the two lenses:

 

70-200mm f/4 L http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/195-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review

 

70-300mm IS http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review

 

The 70-300mm IS is a very nice lens for the money. A number of my friends have one, and they all like them (and their photos look pretty good, too).

[clarence1]

I've had all 3. I'd rate them in this order of preference...<br>

<p>

70-200 f4/L non-IS<br>

70-300mm IS<br>

70-200 f/4L IS<br>

<p>

The 70-200 f4/L non-IS and 70-300mm IS sell for approximately the same amount. The 70-300 is smaller, the black color is more discrete, has greater zoom range, and the IS really makes a difference in handheld shots.

<p>

The 70-200 IS cost twice as much, but I've never regretted the upgrade.

<p>

I also considered the f/2.8L IS, but it's even larger and heavier, the f/2.8L IS is a generation older than the f/4L IS, and the f/2.8L arguably has to bump the aperture to f/4 to be as sharp as the 70-200mm f/4L IS.

<p>

See <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm" target="_blank">http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm</a>

[matthijs]

Uhm...

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html

 

Makes a pretty good case for the 70-200/4 with or without IS.

 

 

So:

 

1: If you must have IS and don't have the money: 70-300/IS.

 

2. If you must have 300mm: 70-300/IS.

 

3. If you don't have the money and don't need IS: 70-200/4.

 

4. If you do have the money and want/need/don't mind IS: 70-200/4 IS.

 

 

I own and use the 70-200/4 IS and it has me spoilt: I cannot seem to find the perfect wide-standard zoom to go with it... (Leaning towards 17-40 after much consideration of my personal preferences.)

 

Kind regards, Matthijs.

[adam_gifford]

<p>

I bought a 70-300IS after considering the 70-200F4L IS.

</p>

 

70-300IS Pro's for me:<br/>

<ul>

<li>Half the price of the 70-200F4L IS</li>

<li>300mm</li>

<li>Black, some people gawk at white lenses / don't like(permit) "professional" equipment</li>

</ul>

70-300IS Con's<br/><ul>

<li>micro-usm instead of ring-usm. Doesn't focus as fast (its still pretty quick, you can feel the torque when

its swinging from extremes)</li>

<li>Front element rotates/extends(?) during focusing</li>

<li>extends while zooming... not really a con, but the F4L doesnt</li>

<li>Long end is F5.6 </li>

</ul>

[adam_gifford]

Oh yeah... I like my 70-300 IS USM so far, got some pretty nice pictures at the ALMS race at limerock this year with it. The focusing speed wasn't really a problem like i thought it might be. My 300D doesn't have ai-servo or anything fancy like that though - so i don't know if you need ring-usm to make use of ai-servo.

 

My wallet appreciates the extra dough still in it.

[alexander_c1]

Thanks everyone for posting. I'll be shooting nature photography. It's hard to get close to certain animals as most of you know. So that is why I thought about the extra 100MM on the 70-300. I asked about the 70-200L because a friend has one and swears by it.

 

The other lenses I have in my kit are:

 

Canon Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens

Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-105mm f/3.5 - 4.5 II USM (this is the one that is always on the cam)

 

I'm gonna have to get down to B&H and compre the two. But I seriously thank you all for the input.

[richard_crowe4]

I had the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS lens and found that it wasn't really an "all around" lens for me because I needed fairly

bright conditions in order to hand hold it and using a monopod or tripod all the time just isn't practical. I was planning

to buy the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens and was just going to pull the trigger on this lens when Canon came out with the

70-200mm f/4L IS model.

 

I use this lens 3-4x more often than I ever used the non-IS model because of the increased hand holdability (if there

is such a word). I pair the 70-200mm f/4L IS with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on two cameras as my standard kit. This

combination is super but, expensive.

 

I really prefer an IS equipped telephoto lens. The IS on my 17-55mm is just icing on the cake but, IS is really

important to me on a tele lens. I would choose the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens over the 70-200mm f/4L non-IS lens

just because of the added ability to hand hold this lens. But - if you can afford it; the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is a

jewel! I just shot a few images of my dog outside in the failing sunlight. My exposure was 1/60 second at f/4 using

ISO 400. They were sharp as tacks. I can shoot as slow as 1/60 second using 200mm with every expectation of

sharp imagery almost 100% of the time. At 1/30 second, using 200mm; my keeper rate is not 100% but, is still very

respectable.

[andrew_viny]

If you're willing to get an f/4, get the 70-200 f/4 IS. Worth the extra dough. Great lens! Tack sharp, wuick AF, brilliant color and contrast.

[alexander_c1]

I just got back from B&H. I think I'm going to go with the 70-200. It's got better image quality.

 

One thing to note. The sales guy I talked to was so PRO Sigma that it was annoying. He kept saying both of these lenses ar crap compared to the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM APO Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS. He wanted to shove it down my throat. I was so upset that I did not buy the 70-200 on the spot. I rather go back another time and avoid him at all costs. Why would someone immediately discard two lenses that do not get bad reviews? Maybe he gets better commission when he sells Sigma?