75-300 IS or 70-200 f4 L

[brault]

I have a new 10D with the following Canon lenses:

50mm f1.8
50mm macro f2.5
24-85mm f3.5-4.5 USM
100-300mm f5.6 (non-L)

I am about to purchase one of the following two lenses. Both are within my price range and at the maximum weight I want to carry. Most of my pictures are taken on walk abouts and I won't have a tripod with me. At 61, I don't want too carry too much weight so the 70-200 f2.8 IS is out. Also, it is too expensive for me to justify as an amateur. Here are my thoughts on the two lenses.

Canon 70-200mm f4 L USM Advantages

1. Sharper than 75-300 IS.
2. Faster autofocus
3. Better build

Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 USM IS Advantages

1. IS

In some situations where I want the additional depth of field allowed by the slower handheld shutter speeds available with IS the 70-200 simply won't do the job. Also, in lower light I have a 1 or 2 fstop advantage with the 75-300 and IS before needing a tripod. Since I won't normally have a tripod this means more lost picture opportunities if I go with the 70-200..

Related to that is the fact that the IS mitigates to some extent the sharpness advantage of the 70-200. First, at the same shutter speed I can get pictures with less camera shake. Second, with equal camera shake (i.e. slower shutter speed with IS) I can use smaller sharper fstops (e.g. f4 vs. f8).

The 75-300 has great walk about focal range. Of course, I could buy the 1.4 extender for the 70-200 f4 L.

My head tells me the 75-300 IS is the more useful lens for my needs. My heart wants the tack sharpness of the 70-200 f4 L when adequate shutter speeds are used and the depth of field meets my requirements for the picture.

Any thoughts?

Frank B

[jmublueduck]

don't even question this... head-to-head, the 70-200 f/4 is leaps and bounds better... not only is the image quality supurb, but it's built much more solid & utilizes better glass.

just my $0.02... but everyone else will agree ;)

edit: i understand the IS issue... buy a monopod for $40-50 & don't sweat it. you won't regret buying the L over the consumer version. the only hitch is that this 70-200 doesn't have a tripod collar.

you may also want to consider the sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Photodo.com gives it a rating of 3.9... pretty close to the rating of 4.1 of the Canon equivalent!

[brault]

Thanks for your comments. Ths Sigma is a little heavier than I want.

I will think about the monopod idea.

Frank B

jmublueduck wrote:
don't even question this... head-to-head, the 70-200 f/4 is leaps and bounds better... not only is the image quality supurb, but it's built much more solid & utilizes better glass.

just my $0.02... but everyone else will agree ;)

edit: i understand the IS issue... buy a monopod for $40-50 & don't sweat it. you won't regret buying the L over the consumer version. the only hitch is that this 70-200 doesn't have a tripod collar.

you may also want to consider the sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Photodo.com gives it a rating of 3.9... pretty close to the rating of 4.1 of the Canon equivalent!

[justme_dc]

I gotta second the opinion on the 70-200 f4L it is just a better lens.

[ssrioon]

I think I understand your point. So, I think I normally shoot pictures in the same way that you do. That's why I would recommend

"75-300mm IS USM"

No doubt. 70-200mm L is a better lens overall as everyone says. However, to my typical habbit of photo shooting, I find 75-300mm IS to be more useful, convenient and lightweight. Everything can be packed in a compact-size camera bag, and you're ready to go.

As as amatuer, I don't find the difference in image quality to be so significat enough that I would choose 70-200mm L over the 75-300mm IS.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I was an ex-Nikon user with F4s/N90s and 80-200/2.8 combo. And I have done a lot of commencement photography by using the combo. Now, I think I am more happy with the lighter weight of 10D and 75-300mm combo (replaced by 100mm Macro if higher image quality needed).

Anyhow, that's my opinion. It's probably biased toward the IS 'cause one reason I switched to Canon is because of the IS technology. (I know Nikon has VR, but it's expensive and they don't have many selections available.) Well, at least I know what I want. So, that should be alright, right? ;)

My current gears,

17-40mm f/4L USM
28-135mm f/3.5-4.5 IS USM
100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM

[vciinc]

Difinately buy the 70-200 and you can also boost up the ISO a notch when need. I had the 75-300 sold it and got the 70/200. Much better results.

Jerry

[lziering]

Given the low noise of the 10D, you might gain a stop or two by cranking up the ISO setting so that you could hand hold the 70-200 L.

I'm about to sell my 75-300 IS because it's not a very good lens (other than the IS feature) and buy the 70-200 L.

[brault]

Thanks to everyone who replied. I have decided to wait a while before I make a final decision. I will use my current zoom lenses which rate pretty well for non-L lenses and see if I am happy with the quality of the results with digital. Also, I can see how often I would need IS to better judge the trade off between sharpness, contrast etc. and the ability to use smaller apertures handheld.

I am also going to try taking pictures only at the focal lengths I would have if I bought the 135 f2 L and a the 1.4 converter (suggested on DR) to see how much I miss the ability to zoom to get the composition and perspective I want without cropping. Thanks again.

Frank B

[Fried]

I'm happy with the 75-300.
It is a good lens, especially for travel photo.
But it seem a was lucky and got a good one.
Qualitity of the lens seems to be quite different from copy to copy if you believe the comments in here.

[brault]

Fried wrote:
I'm happy with the 75-300.
It is a good lens, especially for travel photo.
But it seem a was lucky and got a good one.
Qualitity of the lens seems to be quite different from copy to copy if you believe the comments in here.

Thanks for your comment. The comments I have recieived here and at DPR from people who own or owned the 75-300 do vary a great deal. I'm not sure how much of that due to quality differences or to different perceptions. Overall, it sounds like it is a fine lens.

Frank B

[lziering]

One more thought. Most of use websurfer/photonuts use Photodo as the best source of objective data on lens quality. They rate the 75-300 IS as one of Canon's worst lenses. Check it out at: http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

[brault]

lziering wrote:
One more thought. Most of use websurfer/photonuts use Photodo as the best source of objective data on lens quality. They rate the 75-300 IS as one of Canon's worst lenses. Check it out at: http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

The rating is 2.9 is only slightly lower than other current Canon non L zoom lenses in the 70/80-200/300 range. Some of them have slightly better MTFs of 3.0 or 3.1, but when you consider the range of 75-300 it holds its own. Also, the 75-300 falls off a bit at 300mm which lowers its MTF rating. It appears to be as good as Canon's non-L 70/80-200mm lenses through the same focal lengths plus gives you IS and 300mm, although admittedly a bit soft at that focal length. The 75-300 non-IS is rated at 3.1, only slightly better, and it does not have IS.

Frank B

[Fried]

Hi,
german (quite renowned) photo magazine colorfoto rates the 28-135 SI as satisfying (69pts), the 75-300 IS as good (73 pts) the SIgma 15-30 as very good (80pts) and the Canon 300 f4 L IS as very good (84pts).
FWIW
Fried

[dbarthel]

The 75-300 was the first lens I threw away when I got my D60. No contrast, soft, flair, etc. Not appropriate for anything other than a bottom end consumer SLR, much less a D60 or 10D. You will immediately see a huge difference with L glass.

[neuroteam]

I just shot an NBA playoff from the 18th row using D 60 with 75-300mm IS. Once I figured out the shutter delay, I got great pictures with just the ambient light. Even at 1000, they were sharp. The lens is easy to handle, and the zoom works great, allowing shot planning and then zoom in to shoot

[D60DIETER]

Hi,

I owned th 70-200/4 L. It is ok. What I found out for myself is that in most cases I used it as a Telephoto (nearby 200). Therefore I sold it and bought the much better 2,8/200 L USM II. This lens is incredible sharp, it is very compact and it is not more expensive than the zoom. And, and thats the mayor point, it gives you one stop more!

I can highly recommend that solution.