70-200mm f/4.0 L vs 70-200mm f/4.0 L

[charles_wood]

<p>This thread was akin to going to a foreign country and observing another loud mouth, arrogant American standing 10 feet away from me, making an ass of himself.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Guys, I really hope you do not get that kind of answers next time you post a question here. OK having some fun, but try to make fun of those you know and have been on this forum a while, and not of newbies. That kind of response can for sure turn many newbies away from the forum.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>Best post I have seen in a while, get the f4 IS.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I had my fun earlier - so now I'll post my own experience with the 70-200mm f/4.0 L. (Or is it the 70-200mm f/4.0 L... let me check... sorry... ;-)</p>

<p>I've had the non-IS version of the EF 70-200mm f/4 L for a number of years and I have used in on cameras ranging from the Digital Rebel XT to the 5DII. I also use several longer and shorter L zooms and several non-L primes.</p>

<p>You asked specifically about action, nature, and macro photography so I'll focus on those.</p>

<p>By "action" photography, I'm assuming that you mean something like sports. I'll assume that you know that the 70-200mm range would be right for whatever sport(s) you cover so I won't get into that question. What about the suitability of this lens for sports aside from that? If you shoot action sports you will, in almost all cases, shoot at a high enough shutter speed that the lack of image-stabilization (e.g. - "IS") won't be an issue. If you shoot in good to OK light the f/4 aperture will likely be fine as well. There can be some advantages to having a larger f/2.8 aperture available even in those conditions, but there can also be some disadvantages including the price and bulk/weight of the lens. On the other hand, if you shoot indoor sports where you cannot or prefer not to use flash, the f/4 aperture might well be a liability. You obviously pick up a bit more leeway by going with the f/2.8 (possibly non-IS) version of this lens... but an alternative that may be even more interesting would be to get one or two large aperture prime telephotos.</p>

<p><img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/2301-2/SantaRosaSprint20080218.jpg" alt="" width="644" height="474" /></p>

<p>"Nature" could mean a variety of things and it encompasses a variety of shooting methods. If "nature" to you implies "landscape" and you shoot from a tripod, the non-IS version of the 70-200mm lens is an outstanding choice on virtually all counts. As with all four of the EF 70-200mm zooms, image quality is outstanding for a zoom and very competitive with a number of alternative primes. If you work from a tripod the IS feature is far less critical. If you tend to travel on foot when you shoot nature - as I do - you'll appreciate the fact that you get all of this optical quality and versatility in a smaller and lighter package than the f/2.8 zoom.</p>

<p>If "nature" means "wildlife" to you, things get a bit more complicated: what types of wildlife (big/small, scary/benign, moving fast or static?), shooting from a tripod or handheld? lighting? The 70-200mm range, even on a crop sensor camera, is likely to fall a bit short for many bird photographs, for example, while it could work well for photographing large but generally-non threatening animals like deer. However, if you shoot slow moving beasties (as opposed to, say, birds in flight) having IS could be valuable for you.</p>

<p><img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/533-2/BeachGulls20080112.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>A 70-200mm zoom would not typically be your first choice for "macro" photography, but there are some macro-like uses where it excels. I often use this lens for photographing wildflowers since I can use the long focal length to isolate the flower from the background when shooting at f/4 and because I can shoot from a bit further back - often an advantage when shooting from the tripod.</p>

<p><img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/2823-3/BlueDicksFlowers20090328.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Dan</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I think we scared him away :-(</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I've got them both. Trust me, you can't go wrong, although I personally prefer the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>Then again, you might want to look at the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>All four are nice lenses, in any case.</p>

<p>Don't listen to these other guys. They're just razzing you.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[oistrakh]

<p>If you will be handholding this lens, get the IS version. Otherwise save your money.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I thought this was going to be another pointles "which lens should I buy" thread but it turned out to be quite entertaining. Thanks!</p>

<p>:~)>=<</p>

 

[chien_chiang]

<p>Hey, I knew that question would get a lot of responses, but wow, I didn't expect this much attention. </p>

<p>Now that we got some people interested, the real question was between a 70-300F4.5-5.6 IS and a 70-200 F4L.</p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>A masterful, brilliant strategy! Get everyone's attention, then pop the real question when we're all done snickering. Leads me to think that perhaps you may not be the novice at forum posting that you appeared to be....</p>

<p>Okay seriously though. Obviously the latter will give sharper photos. To what extent, I don't know. Aren't there a variety of reviews of both of these lenses floating around the internet? If you are truly interested in the longer range of the 70-300, might I suggest the 100-400 instead? The one downside I can think of with this lens is that it is a push-pull zoom.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>[T]he real question was between a 70-300F4.5-5.6 IS and a 70-200 F4L.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ohhhhhh. I'm glad we got that straightened out.</p>

<p>The 70-300 f/4.5-5.6L IS is not, in my opinion, a very good lens. I sold mine quickly.</p>

<p>There is, however, a DO version of it that costs about twice as much that is reputed to be quite good.</p>

<h1>Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 <em>DO</em> IS</h1>

<p>Google it for reviews.</p>

<p>Here is Castleman's review:</p>

<p>http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_300/index.htm</p>

<p>--Lannie<strong><br /> </strong></p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Note the following from Castleman's conclusion:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM is a compact, very fast-focusing zoom telephoto lens that provides generally excellent imaging function including excellent image stabilization at a high price. It is a weak performer at 300mm.<strong> It generally provides noticeably better performance than the cheaper consumer 75-300mm lens.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you don't expect to go beyond 200mm very often, I really do recommend the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. It has been a real workhorse for me.<strong> </strong> Unfortunately, it is a rather expensive lens<strong>.</strong> Please Google it as well. A lot of people use and love that lens.<strong> </strong> (There is a non-IS version of it, but I have never used it.)<br /> <br /> --Lannie<strong><br /> </strong></p>

[bryan_lardizabal]

<p>Best bang for the buck is the Canon EF 70-200mm f4L, however, if you like the the crutches effect IS gives you then spend double the money for the same sharpness in the IS version.<br>

I don't like the <strong>70-300F4.5-5.6 IS</strong></p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Check out the table of comparisons at this link:</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

<p>Only you can decide if IS is worth it for you. It is for me at events such as plays or concerts, where a tripod is just not an option.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[chien_chiang]

<p>The DO version looks to be a much better lens, but is also more expensive. I was looking for something in the $600-$800 range which limits me to either the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6L IS and the 70-200 F4. <br>

From everyone's informative comments I think the 70-200 is a better product.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>It has to be better than the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6L IS (non-DO version), which I could not recommend to anyone.</p>

<p>The Canon EF 70-200mm f4L is reputed to be very crisp.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>The OP seems to be a master in marketing - in a flash we know him - after the first post! ;)</p>

[oofoto]

<p>I would get the Canon 100mm f/2 Macro prime lens instead. It fits your needs more closely than a zoom.</p>

[tom_spalding]

<p>Given your budget, I'd get the 70-200mm f4. I have it and love it. Add a 1.4x tele-extender when you can afford it - costs you one f-stop but extends your reach. I use this combination all the time for day-time kid sports - mostly soccer and baseball. I've heard that 100-400mm is also quite sharp except near 400mm, but I've never used it. I doubt the utility of the 100mm f/2 prime for outdoor sports, although it'd be great for gymnastics or basketball.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Now that the Photo.net games have come to a close at 4:46 p.m., and if you would have conducted a quick search on the two lenses, you would have come up with this May 17, 2009 posting > http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00TNfi.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>I don't own any of the 70-300 so I cannot comment on them. I do own the 100-400 and haven't noticed any softness issues at 400mm. The photo bellow is cropped image from the 100-400 at 400mm, F7.1, hand held. I think the shutter was about 1/600 sec. The 100-400 is also a good lens however it is weighs conciederably more than the 70-200F4 and is well out of his budget. </p>

[mrossi]

<p>I have the 70-200 f4 and the 100-400 as well. Love both of them beyond almost all my other lenses. The 100-400 is fine at 400 with f8-11ish. The 300 isn't really long enough to be worth sacrificing quality at the higher end (if it does, I know know), whereas with the 200 you know it's a fantastic lens.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>Sorry for posting a tiff. Here is the JPEG.</p>

<div></div>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I had both and if I were to buy one again it will surely be the 70-300 IS. Reason is simple: I find IS to be extremely important in tele, and especially in a slow tele. It is (IMHO of course) much more important than better AF and BQ.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">BTW, I found IQ to be indistinguishable between the two.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

[kari v]

<blockquote>

<p>It has to be better than the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6L IS (non-DO version), which I could not recommend to anyone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you sure you're not talking about 75-300 IS..?</p>