70-200 F/4L vs 70-300 IS USM is K I L L I N G me!

[fs454]

I, a very indecisive person, thought there'd be a simple choice for a nice telezoom.

Now i'm faced with an ongoing debate over two lenses with equally awesome features. I know you've all probably had enough of this subject, but it's really killing me.

I'm picking up an XTi kit and one of these lenses in a few weeks.

I mean...the 70-200 has constant aperture throughout the zoom range, and with a 1.4x TC, you get 280mm, which is some decent number when factored in with the 1.6x crop factor...and best of all, its an L lens!

BUT! The 70-300 IS USM has...well, Image Stabilization, and an extra 100mm of reach out of the box. But the L build quality is nowhere to be found.


AHHHHHHHH! What do I do?! I feel as if 200mm won't be enough compared to the 300mm, and there's no IS with the L glass. But like, it has room for expansion with the TC, which I can't get right away, but yeah.


I'm leaning for the L glass, because if I want to upgrade to the F/2.8 version or the IS version, I can simply sell it to someone...Same could possibly be said for the 70-300? Or no? I also get bragging rights for owning a piece of L glass >_>

I'm a sucker for REALLY SHARP things, but ugh, i'm going to start repeating myself, but that's what's going on in my head, hahah. Sharp, but not as much reach. IS, but not as sharp. Sharp, but not as much reach. Good amount of reach, but not as sharp.

Is there ANY way I can make this decision easier?

Any input is greatly appreciated. Sorry to bring this upon you guys once again >_>

[grinchy]

70-200 gets my vote..

[Psychic1]

Canon EF70-200L-f4 is an excellent lens, I purchased it for myself as a birthday present in January and I use it everyday with either the 5D or 10D. NO AF or IQ loss with the Canon 1.4xII. It's as good as my L primes in both sharpness and color.
http://i.pbase.com/g6/37/705637/2/75514818.qERMH98I.jpg

[wimg]

What use are you planning for your telephoto zoom? Outdoors, reasonable light? Tripod? Occasionally indoors with higher iso? I did all of this with the 70-200 non-IS. Only went to IS for the extra little bit of IQ, and the increase in handholdability in low light, for candid low light shots, mostly.

The 70-300 gets a little soft over 200, although it still is very good at that range, while the 70-200 with 1.4X is still very sharp. So, if you can live without IS, for now, get the 70-200. It retains its value better than the non-L lens anyway.

Alternatively, save a little longer, and you can get into agony about the F/4 IS vs the F/2.8 non-IS. I think that is much more fun :) :).

Kind regards, Wim

[fs454]

So, at 280mm with the converter, would a monopod suffice?

what about that cheaper Kenko Pro TC for $200?

[LightRules]

This "dilemma" comes up all the time. If you can do at all w/o IS, get the L. Even with a 1.4x, it is at least as good optically as the 7-3IS (both at 280mm f5.6). That said, I am a fan of both lenses. I've used both a lot (and various copies at that), and both have their strengths. But if it came down to it for me, put both lenses in front of my face on a table and say, "choose" --- I'd take the L. Not by a landslide, but still nonetheless. Both nice lenses.

[fs454]

Well, pretty much what you said, wimg. I really wish I could handhold it though.

Also, would the 50mm F/1.8 lens be okay for say...walking around Boston at night handheld and maybe a monopod? What about uhh, the kit lens? >_>

[airshaq20]

Well, let me point it this way, you can never go wrong with an L lens.
I know the IS has its pros but its variable aperture is on the slow side.

L + constant aperture against IS + slow&variable aperture, I'll take the L anytime of the day.

[wimg]

So, at 280mm with the converter, would a monopod suffice?
As an alternative to IS? To a point, yes. But it isn't as good as IS. Now, IS + monopod, then you're talking :).
Kidding aside, I have shot many a picture at 280, not pod whatsoever. Just use iso 400 or 800, and you're off and away. Generally speaking, 200 mm and more are focal lengths you would use outdoors, rather than indoors, and by the time the light gets lower, it is tripod time anyway.
what about that cheaper Kenko Pro TC for $200?
That works fine, or the Tamron or Soligor equivalent - they are all the same tcon.

Kind regards, Wim

[drjiveturkey]

A used Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX NON-DG is a great alternative (but heavy). Pictures are sharp & color is good. I say non-DG because price to quality ratio is great ~$650 used. The new DG version isn't worth the extra $350 IMO.

Don't forget we're in the digital age and cropping is an easy alternative to TC.

[wimg]

Well, pretty much what you said, wimg. I really wish I could handhold it though. Why couldn't you? Just make sure you use about 1/300s and up. With good technique you may get good results at longer shutter speeds, and with a monopod you will too.

Also, would the 50mm F/1.8 lens be okay for say...walking around Boston at night handheld and maybe a monopod? What about uhh, the kit lens? >_> Yes, unless you try to freeze action. But at night that is a problem anyway. With the 17-40, I manage 1/10s unaided at 17 mm, so it should be the same with the 18-55, just use good technique. With a monopod, you should be able to get that easily.

Good technique: feet apart, one slightly forward to the other, elbows clamped to the side, but not too fiercely, steady, breathe out, hold breath right there, click the button.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

[fs454]

I'm attempting to master the handhold with my point and shoot currently, and i'm doing well. I'm spoiled by its Leica lens and lens-shift IS though.

So would you say it'd be better to get the TC or the 50mm F/1.8? That's my crucial decision now, I found the Kenko one on Ebay for $115...but from Hong Kong. I want to take the obvious daylight shots, but for the night, assuming I master the technique, would the kit lens be fine?

I want to also take some shots underground in subway stations. I'm a fan of Boston's MBTA and am currently applying for a photo permit so I don't have to sneak a DSLR down, haha. This is extremely hard already with my P&S(Panny DMC-FX01) because of the low light, but yeah.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Kenko-Pro-300-DG-1-4x-Teleconverter-fit-Canon-NEW-5K_W0QQitemZ200094613447QQcategoryZ4687QQssPageNam eZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Does that look legit?

Thanks for all your help so far.

[syntrix]

I love my 70-300 IS lens!

I'm going to sell my xt and this lens in a few days to hopefully fund a new body though. The reach and lightweight package is really nice on this lens.

[shaneotool]

I chose the 70-300is and cant say anything bad about it - except it is not as big, white, and cool looking as the 70-200mm. It has performed great - it's nice to not have to always check the iso and ss.

[Permagrin]

Is the 70-200 F4IS out? It too works great with a 1.4xtc and it's got IS.

(if not, I'd still go with the 70-200)

and yeah, that auction looks legit. :)

[pagnamenta]

It seems you want to go with the 70-200 f4, great choice. I was in your shoes two months ago and opted for the 70-200 because of focus speed (sports shooter) build quality, constant aperture (less hassle) and contrast. As already said, you can't go wrong with an L, most times.

I would vote for the 50 1.8. If you want subway shots, you'll need the f1.8. It's a great lens to play around with and it offers a lot of creativity with DOF. You probably don't have any experience with 200-300mm with your point and shoot, but the extra 100mm might not be needed. I would buy the Kenko after the 50 1.8 because you might be fine with the zoom range.

Also, are you buying the Rebel Kit, because you haven't mentioned a lens for wide angles.

[fs454]

I'm buying the kit, yes. I'm assuming the kit lens will be fine for wide angles at first?

[crn3371]

At some point, analysis paralysis sets in. Either lens is a good choice. Flip a coin!

[buddy4344]

I have the 70-300 IS and loved using it on field hockey games. I recently bought the 100-400 IS. I was worried I didn't have as sharp a pictures with the 1-4, so I put it on the tripod with IS off and shot it at varied ranges. I then did the same for the 70-300. I also added a 1.4tc from Kenko on the 70-300 to get more length.

Now remember, all of this is with IS off. I was really amazed at how much sharper the 100-400 was in this comparison. I think my "softness" was because i kept using more than 300mm and with too slow shutter speeds.

Anyway, I am rambling, but I took great shots with the 70-300. It was easier to hand hold and was less conspicuous in public, but .... it is a little softer.

[syntrix]

I'm buying the kit, yes. I'm assuming the kit lens will be fine for wide angles at first?


For moderate, but not much by "wide angle" supposed standards. What do you mean by "wide angle"?

I have a siggy 10-20 and usually somewhere in that range on a crop body is excellent for wide... well... maybe that's ultra wide.

Kit lens gets no love, but it works just fine!

[fs454]

I guess just general purpose. Landscape maybe? I know it's not truely 18mm on the wide side, since the 1.6x crop, but it seems like it'll be enough for now.

Besides, I originally was planning on spending $200 on a lens, hahaha. Now i'm planning for $500 and maybe a 50mm f/1.8.

I want either that 1x-5x life size Canon macro lens, or the 100mm macro lens towards the end of the year, too.

[syntrix]

I guess just general purpose. Landscape maybe? I know it's not truely 18mm on the wide side, since the 1.6x crop, but it seems like it'll be enough for now.

Besides, I originally was planning on spending $200 on a lens, hahaha. Now i'm planning for $500 and maybe a 50mm f/1.8.

I want either that 1x-5x life size Canon macro lens, or the 100mm macro lens towards the end of the year, too.

I know that decisions are hard! Got any friends or live in a metropolitan where you can grap the regionals for a try of lenses?

That might sway your decision without having to spend money on the wrong choice!

[fs454]

I have a friend with an XT, but he uses a 75-300 IS USM.

I'm gonna convince the store to let me take the XTi outside with the 70-200 attached...somehow.


OH YEAH! I'm planning on getting a refurb version of this lens if my store has any. I'm also making my store match their online price ($600), if they don't have one.

[CRE@TE]

I found that the 70-200 quite often is not enough reach for me. I went and picked up a Sigma 100-300 f/4.

[fs454]

^Even with the TC?

Also, that was taken with the 70-200?

[CRE@TE]

Nope, with my new Sigma 100-300 f/4.

Though, it would be a huge lens on the XTi.

[cjm]

70-200 f4 L hands down. If the 70-300 IS is even twice as good as the old 75-300 IS, then its only half as good as the 70-200 f4 L.

The 70-200 L is sharp from 70-200mm but usually on the cheap 300mm lenses, and zooms paticularly the lens is only really good from 70-200 and the 300mm is a stretch of any quality.

Do your self a HUGE favor and go for the 70-200 L, buy it used and save some money as many people dump the f4 version for either one of the two IS versions out there. So you can get one for around $500 bucks. And best $500 bucks you can spend (well ok the 17-40L is also the best too)

[cjm]

Nope, with my new Sigma 100-300 f/4.

Though, it would be a huge lens on the XTi.Doesn't also cost almost twice as much as the 70-200 f4 L and the 70-300 IS ?

Pretty good image though. Almost looks like it came from a 300L.

[fs454]

Yeah, I think i'm finally going to make the decision.

70-200 F/4L it is. Maybe i'll upgrade later on to the IS version, if need be.

Also, that sigma does in fact cost around $1000 :/

[JohnJ80]

70-200 f/4L - no question. It is the better lens and it is arguably one of Canon's best zooms.

J.

[pagnamenta]

Hands down, 70-200 f4. I don't know what you're shooting, but you'll enjoy the faster AF speed and constant aperture. The build quality is great also. I say buy the 50 f1.8 if you have the funds. It's indispensable for low light.

B&H Photo Video has the 70-200 f4 for around $560. I bought mine during the Fall rebates and saved $70. There will be rebates starting soon, maybe you can save yourself some money.

The Sigma is a great lens also, just too expensive compared to the 70-200. It's also bigger so the 70-200 wins on convenience.

[fs454]

My shopping list as of now:
Rebel XTI Kit - Black
70-200 F/4L
50mm F/1.8
1.4x TC for the 70-200.

Sounds like a nice starter kit, eh? I'm not going to have both the 1.4x TC and the 50mm right away though, I'm going to have to pick one or the other at first.

[nyy]

I had the same dilemna and chose the f4L. I just decided that I'd rather have the constant f4, better build, and the faster focus speed.
It's supposed to come around tomorrow.

[pagnamenta]

You made the right choice, great kit. You'll enjoy that one and put it to good use. Get the 50 1.8 first, and if you feel you need the reach with the zoom, then get the tele converter, just my .02.

[Marsellus_Wallace]

I, a very indecisive person, thought there'd be a simple choice for a nice telezoom.

Yes, it's difficult. Canon spoils us with at least 12 available telezooms (didnt count them) to choose from between a couple hundred dollars to several thousand dollars. Let me help you out.

I mean...the 70-200 has constant aperture throughout the zoom range, and with a 1.4x TC, you get 280mm, which is some decent number when factored in with the 1.6x crop factor...and best of all, its an L lens!All true, but the 70-300IS is way better at 280mm than the 70-200L+TC. TC's are things you want to use as little as possible. Add to this that the canon 1.4x TC is quite expensive, so you'll end up with an expensive 280mm F/5.6 with only acceptable image quality. I'm not only talking about sharpness here, but also about contrast, chromatic abberration and distortion.

I'm leaning for the L glass, because I can simply sell it to someone...Same could possibly be said for the 70-300? Or no? I also get bragging rights for owning a piece of L glass Never buy something because the manufacturer calls it L or puts a red stripe on it. You should buy the right tool for your job, and that could very well be the 70-300IS. The 70-200L is best in it's range, but cannot do some tricks the 70-300IS can. Both lenses can be sold easily i think, but indeed most people are willing to pay slightly more for a second-hand L. This is understandable because the 70-200L is very very well built, the 70-300 feels flimsy by comparison.

I'm a sucker for REALLY SHARP things, but ugh, i'm going to start repeating myself, but that's what's going on in my head, hahah. Sharp, but not as much reach. IS, but not as sharp. Sharp, but not as much reach. Good amount of reach, but not as sharp.
Both lenses are really sharp and produce nice colours. From what I read, the L is slightly better, but you'll be hard-pressed to see it.

Remember that IS does nothing to freeze your subject, it only counteracts your shaky hands while the shutter is open.

So, a knock-off:
In favor of the 70-200L:
- Build quality is vastly superior
- Lens hood is included (saves more $$ than you might think)
- Faster AF - "Ring USM" (though the 70-300's "micro USM" is pretty fast)
- No rotating front element (if you want to use a polariser filter, this is a necessity)
- Everything works internally (noting rotates or extends as you zoom or focus)
- Optically slightly superior
- A full stop faster at 200mm (cuts shutter speed in half)
- Produces more (if desired) and more pleasing bokeh.

In favor of the 70-300 IS
- Longer reach
- IS
- Slightly lighter and smaller
- It's proper black
- It's a tad cheaper

Is there ANY way I can make this decision easier?Don't mess with teleconverters. Since these lenses are both very good, and the 70-300 makes up with IS and 100 extra mm's, the only real question is: do you need the 200-300mm range? If so, buy the 70-300IS, if not buy the 70-200L.

EDIT: I own the 70-200 F/4L. I don't need 300mm. I have used a friend's 70-300 on a trekking holiday, and found it very good. In the meantime he tried my 70-200L. He found out that he needed 300mm, so we both made the right choice, apparently!

[LightRules]

but the 70-300IS is way better at 280mm than the 70-200L+TC. TC's are things you want to use as little as possible

I disagree. The 7-2 is at least as good, if not better, than the 7-3 at 280mm f5.6. To say the 7-3 is "way better" at this setting is simply not true, in all my findings with various sample copies. This is representative shooting something about 10 feet away: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/53825803/original

Here is another with a subject at infinity focus, where they are a bit closer optically: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/53825779/original

The 7-3 is a very good lens still though.

[SavageDigital]

I've owned both (2X for the 70-200mm f4, as late as last week) and if I had to do it again, I'd go for the 70-300mm IS. It provides more flexibility and only cedes a slight decrease in IQ to the L. Of course the L has much better build. But even then, neither is weather sealed, so that can only mean so much for field use.


http://www.savagedigital.com/Pics/Gorilla4.jpg

http://www.savagedigital.com/Pics/Hippo.jpg

[ed rader]

I've owned both (2X for the 70-200mm f4, as late as last week) and if I had to do it again, I'd go for the 70-300mm IS. It provides more flexibility and only cedes a slight decrease in IQ to the L. Of course the L has much better build. But even then, neither is weather sealed, so that can only mean so much for field use.







i love that hippo shot :D .

ed rader

[Marsellus_Wallace]

I disagree. The 7-2 is at least as good, if not better, than the 7-3 at 280mm f5.6. To say the 7-3 is "way better" at this setting is simply not true, in all my findings with various sample copies.
Thanks for your reply. I have to say a few things, though.
- In your sample shots the 70-300 is zoomed all the way to 300mm, it's weakest spot. It's definately better on 280.
- The results look very good indeed with the 70-200+TC, but a Kenko TC was used. I was posting about the canon 1.4x TC. I've never been impressed with what i saw from that when i borrowed one, so i didn't buy one. This Kenko might be a good option, as it seems to add less barrel distortion, too.
- I don't see any real difference in the signs photo's.
- I still recommend someone who wants to go to 300mm often to stay away from TCs. I have seen some super results from the 200mm prime+TC combo, though.

[JeffreyVB]

I am going through the same dilemma. I have the 70-300 IS, but thinking about replacing it with the 70-200 f4L and a teleconverter. I would really like a 70-200 f4L IS model.

I don't know....decisions, decisions.....

[Andrew Pratt]

I went back and forth on this as well and ended up picking the 70-300IS as I find I need the reach past 200 mm. I've seen a lot of bench test photo's comparing the two and honestly they're not that different...esp if you don't pixel peep to the extreme. IS and 300mm are what sold me to hold me over till I can afford to jump to the Bigma or 1-4L. Check out some of the pbase review sites and make your choice....I doubt you'd be unhappy with either as they are both good lenses. IMO it comes down to what you need...the 70-200L might be perfect for some people but if you need more length maybe its not for you (it isn't for me) where as I like to hand hold and need the length (and then some) so the 70-300 gives me the longer reach and IS.

[Davoxt]

Hope this helps.
Just sitting on the river bank waiting for some ducks to arrive when this dragon fly landed around 5ft away.
With my macro lens left at home I decided to give the 70-200 f4 and a 1.4xTC ago. seem to work for me.

[Moschero]

My vote is the 70-200 http://www.pbase.com/moschero/image/76491532

[nyy]

I just got my 70-200 today. I don't have any experience with the 7-3 IS but I have to say that having a constant f4 in telephoto range is invaluable.

[RedMatrixXRS]

yep, constant aperature is a good thing. especially in a zoom lens.

i vote for the L with a TC.

[Bulldawg534]

I have had the 70-300 is for some time now and absolutely love it. I had the 75-300mm non IS version which we all know is a very well respected lens (kidding) and exchanged it for the 70-300 IS. Granted I haven't taken shots side by side with the L lens but the IS is amazing. So many shots I can take without lugging a 'pod around with me everywhere. As much as I would like to have some 'L' lenses, I am not a pro... yet... and I am not looking for status.

[bowlesbe]

I would ask myself one questions: Does the stuff you take pictures of move?

If it does, get the 70-200. If it doesnt, get the 70-300.

I have the 70-300 IS and love it. Almost every time I put it on I am grateful for that extra 100. The colours and IQ is excellent. I've looked at the tests (ie lightrules, etc) of the two lenses and the differences seem completely negligible. The quality of the shot will depend more on other things than IQ in 99 percent of cases.

Mind you, I used it take pictures of my friends dance class and I didnt find the focus to be fast enough and of course the IS is useless. If taking pictures of dance classes was my primary purchase, I'd get the 70-200. Mind you, a 85 1.8 or a 135 prime would probably be much better than the 70-200 even for that purpose.

My hunch would be that if you dont have a specific use for the 70-200, get the 70-300, as that 100 is more useful than you might think.

Check out http://picasaweb.google.com/ben.bowles/PhotosMarch17th/photo#5043141535270735394

For some pics of ducks where the extra 100 was particulalry valuable.

[KGB]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/kbsub/lotherton%20deer/LOTHERTONHALLcopy.jpg

F4 Gets my vote

[Andrew Pratt]

I just got my 70-300IS and just finished snapping a few shots of the street sign across the street and my BBQ's logo and I must say I'm impressed. IS is very very nice and with a little unsharpen mask in PS they're really sharp. I know I'll need more length to be really happy but IQ isn't going to be the reason I upgrade from this lens.

[davida]

The 70-200 f/4 IS is out (BH has them), although its about twice the cost of the non IS version. I like mine so far, its very very sharp, but there are moments that I'd like a bit more reach than I can get with 1.4x attached. I gave passing thought to the 70-300 and 70-200 f/4 non-IS. For me it came down to wanting something that would be comfortable for walking around with the camera hanging from my neck and has the weather sealing the new IS version offers (since sooner or later Canon will start offering body's with weather sealing...)

[fs454]

I WISH i could get the IS version. So much money though. Maybe later i'll sell and upgrade.

[RedMatrixXRS]

just cause it's not an "L" doesn't mean it takes crappy photo's. get around the learning curve of the 70-300 and use it within it's abilities and it will serve you well.

[Jon_Doh]

The 70-300 IS is near L glass in image quality. I believe it was on Photozone where I saw ratings against L glass and it rated an 8.9 whereas the L lens rated a 9 and 9.1. By comparision the crappy 75-300 USM III rated only a 5.5. Another review referred to the lens as a hidden L glass lens. That's how impressive it is. I tried the lens out and was impressed enough with the quality to forego L glass and get it. It is very sharp at both ends.

[fi20100]

yep, constant aperature is a good thing. especially in a zoom lens.

i vote for the L with a TC.


Well, primes are always constant aperature lenses :) Right?

[S.Horton]

70-200 L gives better pics than the 70-300.

The IS confuses you because it is supposed to. That's called marketing.

You're supposed to compare IS non-L to L IS, then pay even more.

You won't need IS most of the time. Get the better glass.

[JeffreyVB]

Took these after work Friday with my 70-300 IS USM. They only edit has been a resizing for Photobucket.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v175/onenictoy/Dash/IMG_6042c.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v175/onenictoy/Dash/IMG_6046c.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v175/onenictoy/Dash/IMG_6049c.jpg

[Andrew Pratt]

70-200 L gives better pics than the 70-300.

I'd argue that while the 70-200L has the potential to give you sharper images some of the time under ideal conditions its not black and white that it'll always be better. Factors like IS and the longer zoom length favour the 70-300IS in some situations and the image quality of the 70-300IS is closer to the L's then most people that haven't used one would like to admit.

This question is actually rather easy...if you need more then 200mm length buy the 70-300IS. If you aren't going to shoot longer then 200 the 70-200L might be the smarter choice. Either way the image quality of either lens is very high so pick one that suits your needs and enjoy it.

[JohnJ80]

Check out this link which is loaded with 70-200 f/4 eye candy.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1031&thread=14245789

Simply pure eye candy.

The 70-300 may be capable of very good shots (it is) but it is not better than the 70-200 - no way is that the case.

J.

[dicktay]

I have both (70-200 F4L Non IS and 70-300 IS)
I use them on a 350D (Rebel XT)

If you need the xtra 100mm and/or IS then it's the 70-300.

If you want excellent (IMHO) IQ and constant aperture (F4) and superfast focusing then it is the 70-200.

Full size original jpg's, at all apertures and different focal lengths, for both lenses are available for viewing on this site ( Items 2 & 3 ):

http://www.poseruniverse.net/

Hope this helps.

[Bulldawg534]

I have both (70-200 F4L Non IS and 70-300 IS)
I use them on a 350D (Rebel XT)

If you need the xtra 100mm and/or IS then it's the 70-300.

If you want excellent (IMHO) IQ and constant aperture (F4) and superfast focusing then it is the 70-200.

Full size original jpg's, at all apertures and different focal lengths, for both lenses are available for viewing on this site ( Items 2 & 3 ):

http://www.poseruniverse.net/

Hope this helps.

Nothing about the lenses, just noticed a pile of sensor dust that shows up on the higher aperture settings you may want to look at.

Thanks for the comparison!

[z3speed4me]

i have been thinking of moving up myself and was actually comparing both the other day when i was at bh in the city on a 30d... def liked the 200 more!

[Andrew Pratt]

Here's a quick snap shop of my dog in the kitchen this afternoon. I cropped the image down a little but didn't apply any USM etc. It may not be up to the aLcohoLics standard but I'm impressed.

Link to image (http://www.mts.net/~glendap/andrew/Piper.jpg)

[nyy]

Here's an untouched, straight out of the camera shot taken with the 70-200 f4

http://jpegd.com/Photos/Paintball/IMG_6189.JPG
3mb so beware 56k

[Andrew Pratt]

That's nice and sharp.

[fs454]

Now I'm wondering whether I want a WA or macro lens instead >_>

I hope the kit lens will suffice for "wide" enough until I can decide.


I feel that it may be limited, what I can do with a telezoom. Maybe not though. Not sure. ugh, decisions >_<

[Bulldawg534]

Now I'm wondering whether I want a WA or macro lens instead >_>

I hope the kit lens will suffice for "wide" enough until I can decide.


I feel that it may be limited, what I can do with a telezoom. Maybe not though. Not sure. ugh, decisions >_<

I would say that as much as I wanted my 70-300mm, if I did it again, I would get a good prime lens 50 1.8, or a similar lens to the kit, just better quailty as I use that one much more than my zoom.

[JesseBott]

I'm essentially in the same situation, and cannot decide whether or not I need the IS functionality. I have regular Digital Rebel (300D) and am going to Banff, Kootenay, Waterton and Glacier in June and have about $1200 to spend on a two new lenses. I currently have a few lower quality Canon lenses and I am planning on buying 2 IS/L lenses. My essential problem is that I cannot bring a tripod with me to Calgary, as I am flying from Miami. I do not want to even try to bring my tripod as I have had trouble bringing them across country in the past. But, my (somewhat) saving grace is that I am bringing a monopod.

Nonetheless, I have decided to purchase the Canon EF-S 18-70 IS lens ($500 or so). But, I am confused as to whether I should buy the 70-200L or the 70-300 IS. I plan on shooting animals and landscapes, but mostly landscapes. I prefer to shoot handheld, but would not be adverse to using the monopod. As of right now, I am greatly leaned towards purchasing the 70-200L, but essentially do not know how well it would stand up handheld/on a monopod. Especially when compared to the 70-300 IS.

Any advice would be GREATLY appreciated.

[JesseBott]

I forgot to mention that I have a Canon 580EX Speedlite.

[syntrix]

Well, I just sold my 70-300mm IS, and I'm missing it already. Yesterday, after drinking coffee all day, I was shooting my 70-200mm at or near the 200mm range. Wow was I jittery!!! I lost about 1/2 of my casual shots from user shake. The 70-300mm IS would have been very nice yesterday, including the extra reach!

[LightRules]

Well, I just sold my 70-300mm IS, and I'm missing it already. Yesterday, after drinking coffee all day, I was shooting my 70-200mm at or near the 200mm range. Wow was I jittery!!! I lost about 1/2 of my casual shots from user shake. The 70-300mm IS would have been very nice yesterday, including the extra reach!

Which again just goes to show every lens choice is a compromise: you give and you take. You'll get shots that you could not get with your f2.8 lens, and vice versa.

Optically the Canon 7-2f4 is a bit better than the 7-3IS, but that IS is sure nice to have.

[condyk]

Exactly right. I had a great copy of the 70-300mm IS but the build is very average, typical Canon consumer quality, and I sold it on that basis. I didn't have faith that it would survive well in my Africa trip later this year, plus the rotating front element makes CP use very hard. I see the benefits tho' too which is why I bought one. You need to know what your own priorities are.

[JohnJ80]

I'm essentially in the same situation, and cannot decide whether or not I need the IS functionality. I have regular Digital Rebel (300D) and am going to Banff, Kootenay, Waterton and Glacier in June and have about $1200 to spend on a two new lenses. I currently have a few lower quality Canon lenses and I am planning on buying 2 IS/L lenses. My essential problem is that I cannot bring a tripod with me to Calgary, as I am flying from Miami. I do not want to even try to bring my tripod as I have had trouble bringing them across country in the past. But, my (somewhat) saving grace is that I am bringing a monopod.

Nonetheless, I have decided to purchase the Canon EF-S 18-70 IS lens ($500 or so). But, I am confused as to whether I should buy the 70-200L or the 70-300 IS. I plan on shooting animals and landscapes, but mostly landscapes. I prefer to shoot handheld, but would not be adverse to using the monopod. As of right now, I am greatly leaned towards purchasing the 70-200L, but essentially do not know how well it would stand up handheld/on a monopod. Especially when compared to the 70-300 IS.

Any advice would be GREATLY appreciated.

I shoot a lot with both the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 300 f/4 IS on both a 5D and an XT. Either way, I find I get sharper shots using a monopod than I can with handheld and IS. There really is no substitute for good mechanical support. IS on a monopod seems to work really well.

There is a limit to what IS can do - if you are shooting at distance, even a small pertubation translates into a large distance out at the subject. IS is not an end all problems sort of thing.

I've carried my tripod (Gitzo 1258) during international travel several times. Perhaps I'm not understanding your inability to carry your tripod during travel.

Either way, use your monopod. It will make a difference.

J.

[JesseBott]

I shoot a lot with both the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 300 f/4 IS on both a 5D and an XT. Either way, I find I get sharper shots using a monopod than I can with handheld and IS. There really is no substitute for good mechanical support. IS on a monopod seems to work really well.

There is a limit to what IS can do - if you are shooting at distance, even a small pertubation translates into a large distance out at the subject. IS is not an end all problems sort of thing.

I've carried my tripod (Gitzo 1258) during international travel several times. Perhaps I'm not understanding your inability to carry your tripod during travel.

Either way, use your monopod. It will make a difference.

J.


John,

Thanks for the response. I have a manfrotto tripod, and have the unfortunate problem of a wife who doesn't like me to bring too much gear on vacation. I tried bringing a tripod to Yellowstone/Grand Teton/Colorado last year and she found that I took too long to setup and take shots. Which in my case is somewhat of a valid point. I also had issues with an airline with a tripod a few years back (another story). Additionally, I'm trying to take less stuff (if possible). Thus, I am not bringing a tripod.

Nonetheless, I'm still kind of in a confusion. What would you/anyone else recommend for someone doing landscapes/animals shooting most images on monopod/handheld: 70-200L or 70-300 IS? The price is a wash, but I can't quite decide if the quality of 70-200L will be as good/better than the 70-300 IS in this situation. Any advice? Has anyone taken the 70-200L on a trip outdoors and only used it handheld?

Thanks in advance.

[Andrew Pratt]

I just took a look though my photo's that I took at Banff a couple of years ago. I only had the 18-55 kit lens with me at the time but the vast majority of my shots were under 25mm. I few were of wildlife where I was limited by the reach of the kit lens but by and large the landscape shots all require width not length.

[dicktay]

John,


Any advice? Has anyone taken the 70-200L on a trip outdoors and only used it handheld?

Thanks in advance.


All the time, with a Canon 350D (Rebel XT) to motor and drag racing events here:
http://richardtaylor.zenfolio.com/f190781620/

Last vacation I hand held my 75-300 for wild life shots.
Like these:
http://www.poseruniverse.net/Holiday2006/USA/Colorado/Colorado_Top1.htm

Just have to remember the old rule about hand holding shutter speed = 1/focal length (at the 35mm equivalent) so for a Rebel to be safe not under 1/500 sec is safe (unless you are lying down and using some sort of support).

Hope this helps.
Richard

[JesseBott]

All the time, with a Cnon 350D (Rebel XT) to motor and drag racing events here:
http://richardtaylor.zenfolio.com/f190781620/

Last vacation I hand held my 75-300 for wild life shots.
Like these:
http://www.poseruniverse.net/Holiday2006/USA/Colorado/Colorado_Top1.htm

Just have to remeber the old rule about hand holding shutter speed = 1/focal length (at the 35mm equivalent) so for a Rebel to be safe not under 1/500 sec is safe (unless you are lying down and using some sort of support).

Hope this helps.
Richard

Richard,

Thanks for the help. Just to confirm, these are shot with a 70-200L right? I think I've decided to go with the 70-200L, since its L glass, and I'll be using a monopod. Thank you all for your help.

[fs454]

I'm probably doing the same. With a monopod, there seems to be virtually no "set up time" compared to the tripod, and its small.


Damn macro lenses are temping me though >__<

[sboerup]

Sharpness is all about processing. If you want sharper images, your gear won't really make that big of a difference.

Many pros, like the late Monte Zucker used a 28-135 IS in the studio. WHAT? That's not an L lens. If you know how to shoot properly, and process them properly as well then you're fine. I've seen great examples of the 70-300, and I'd get the IS. f4 is already to slow for me. One big kicker for me would be how well they focus in low-light. That is a must.

I don't buy L lenses because they have red paint or say L, or that I can put them in a silly signature. It's about their functionality. I can drop them without worry, they focus quickly and accurately, they are fast (larger apertures) and most importantly, they get the job done. Other pluses: sharpness is generally better, hoods, color/contrast are always great as well. To me it's more about the functionality than the IQ. You can process a picture in many ways to get what you want.

[JohnJ80]

John,

Thanks for the response. I have a manfrotto tripod, and have the unfortunate problem of a wife who doesn't like me to bring too much gear on vacation. I tried bringing a tripod to Yellowstone/Grand Teton/Colorado last year and she found that I took too long to setup and take shots. Which in my case is somewhat of a valid point. I also had issues with an airline with a tripod a few years back (another story). Additionally, I'm trying to take less stuff (if possible). Thus, I am not bringing a tripod.

Nonetheless, I'm still kind of in a confusion. What would you/anyone else recommend for someone doing landscapes/animals shooting most images on monopod/handheld: 70-200L or 70-300 IS? The price is a wash, but I can't quite decide if the quality of 70-200L will be as good/better than the 70-300 IS in this situation. Any advice? Has anyone taken the 70-200L on a trip outdoors and only used it handheld?

Thanks in advance.

ah, yes - the old SAF (Spousal Approval Factor). I know it well.

For landscapes, the 70-200 is the better lens. The glass is better (higher quality). The build is better (think knocking around the boonies hiking). It is weathersealed (IIRC).

The difference is going to be 100mm between the two and that between 200-300mm.

I've used it handheld. For instance:

http://www.pbase.com/johnj80/image/55597446.jpg

It does well.

Still, any image will most likely benefit from being on some sort of support with a long lens. You give us tons of exposure latitude by handholding.

Again, IS is *ok* but it is no panacea.

I have a number of IS lenses and they help, but they are not the total game.

Why don't you buy this lens - or even buy them both - from some place with a generous return policy (B+H is 14 days) and try them out? See for yourself.

J.

[JohnJ80]

Sharpness is all about processing. If you want sharper images, your gear won't really make that big of a difference.



I'm not buying this. Why did I buy a camera? All I needed was the camera in my cell phone and Photoshop?

Sharpness is technique + equipment (presuming used properly) + post processing. Of these, post processing is the least important.


J.

[dicktay]

@JesseeBott

The drag racing pics were shot with the 70-200 F4 L Hand held.

The squirell pics were shot with the Canon 75-300 hand held.
It has since been replaced by the Canon 70-300 IS.

[JesseBott]

Wow. Thanks to all of you for your help. I appreciate the advice. I may take that idea to buy both and return the one I don't like. My trip is only going to be 8 days, so it could potentially be possible. The bad thing would be to break or scratch one. Thank you all again. I'll contribute some shots later on when I make my purchase.

[S.Horton]

Well, I just sold my 70-300mm IS, and I'm missing it already. Yesterday, after drinking coffee all day, I was shooting my 70-200mm at or near the 200mm range. Wow was I jittery!!! I lost about 1/2 of my casual shots from user shake. The 70-300mm IS would have been very nice yesterday, including the extra reach!

Using a monopod and boosting your shutter speed will do the trick, even better than IS.

[Bulldawg534]

I'm essentially in the same situation, and cannot decide whether or not I need the IS functionality. I have regular Digital Rebel (300D) and am going to Banff, Kootenay, Waterton and Glacier in June and have about $1200 to spend on a two new lenses. I currently have a few lower quality Canon lenses and I am planning on buying 2 IS/L lenses. My essential problem is that I cannot bring a tripod with me to Calgary, as I am flying from Miami. I do not want to even try to bring my tripod as I have had trouble bringing them across country in the past. But, my (somewhat) saving grace is that I am bringing a monopod.

Nonetheless, I have decided to purchase the Canon EF-S 18-70 IS lens ($500 or so). But, I am confused as to whether I should buy the 70-200L or the 70-300 IS. I plan on shooting animals and landscapes, but mostly landscapes. I prefer to shoot handheld, but would not be adverse to using the monopod. As of right now, I am greatly leaned towards purchasing the 70-200L, but essentially do not know how well it would stand up handheld/on a monopod. Especially when compared to the 70-300 IS.

Any advice would be GREATLY appreciated.

I tried a zoom lens in the past (Non-IS) and when zoomed out it is almost impossible to get a sharp shot without a tripod. Even on my monopod it wasn't as good. I now have the 70-300 IS and there is a world of difference.

My 2 cents.

[divinemethod]

I had the 7-3 IS when I first bought my camera, in september. Then used it for a while. Though the IS was nice I exchanged it for the 70-200 L, because it feels more solid and focuses better.

I am happier with the L but i sometimes wished it was faster, then I slap my self and say "learn to use your equipment to the max of your ability, and THEN you can reward yourself with the 2.8 IS"

[JesseBott]

I had the 7-3 IS when I first bought my camera, in september. Then used it for a while. Though the IS was nice I exchanged it for the 70-200 L, because it feels more solid and focuses better.

I am happier with the L but i sometimes wished it was faster, then I slap my self and say "learn to use your equipment to the max of your ability, and THEN you can reward yourself with the 2.8 IS"


That's my theory as well. I went ahead and took everyone's advice and pulled the trigger on the 70-200 f/4L. Will post first images. Perhaps it will be a duck?!

[z3speed4me]

you people and your ducks... can we find a new animal?

[S.Horton]

you people and your ducks... can we find a new animal?

I think there's some rule on POTN......... I'm pretty sure I get stopped from posting if I reach 500 posts yet I have not yet posted a duck shot.

I think the min. requirements are that the duck is alive, must not be caged (free range duck rule) and the eyes must be in focus. (Set aside the number of eyes debate; that's old)

At one point, there was debate about also requiring a post of the 3-battery in-home focus test shot using the most expensive lens you happen to own. The only trick was, it had to be handheld.

A few elite POTN'rs combined the two, by placing the batteries atop the duck without killing it. Those who could do that got nicknames from the mods.

[Marsellus_Wallace]

I'm essentially in the same situation, and cannot decide whether or not I need the IS functionality. But, my (somewhat) saving grace is that I am bringing a monopod.

When shooting during daytime, I don't have a single problem shooting handheld with my 70-200 F/4 here in cloudy Holland. Yes, you actually can live without IS if you're shooting in daytime and don't suffer from too much tremor. With a monopod, you'll be fine in most situations. I take one with me in my bag often. A monopod gives a fair deal of stabilization in two of three axis.
You like to shoot animals. Here the extra 100mm of the 70-300IS come in really handy. With 300mm F/5.6 you'll need a tripod or IS in most situations. A 70-200 F/4 with teleconverter gives you a hard-to-use-handheld and expensive 100-280mm F/5.6 which is not a handy substitute.
For action photo's (fast moving subjects) get the 70-200 any time, since it's faster both in AF and in aperture.

So, if the choice is between 70-300IS and 70-200 F/4:
- Wanna go past 200mm often? 70-300 any time.
- Handiest telezoom on the block? 70-300.
- Parkinson? Allergic to mono-/tripods? 70-300
- Need to escape gravity AMAP? 70-300
- All other cases: 70-200.

With the 17-85IS and the 70-300IS you'll have the entire range from 27 to 480 mm covered, all with IS and good image quality for about $1000usd. Sounds pretty neat to me. 17-85 IS+70-300 IS is THE super travel combo IMHO.

[StealthLude]

70-200 EASY!!!

I sold my 70-300 for it and never looked back.

[AdamJL]

I, a very indecisive person, thought there'd be a simple choice for a nice telezoom.

Now i'm faced with an ongoing debate over two lenses with equally awesome features. I know you've all probably had enough of this subject, but it's really killing me.

I'm picking up an XTi kit and one of these lenses in a few weeks.

I mean...the 70-200 has constant aperture throughout the zoom range, and with a 1.4x TC, you get 280mm, which is some decent number when factored in with the 1.6x crop factor...and best of all, its an L lens!

BUT! The 70-300 IS USM has...well, Image Stabilization, and an extra 100mm of reach out of the box. But the L build quality is nowhere to be found.


AHHHHHHHH! What do I do?! I feel as if 200mm won't be enough compared to the 300mm, and there's no IS with the L glass. But like, it has room for expansion with the TC, which I can't get right away, but yeah.


I'm leaning for the L glass, because if I want to upgrade to the F/2.8 version or the IS version, I can simply sell it to someone...Same could possibly be said for the 70-300? Or no? I also get bragging rights for owning a piece of L glass >_>

I'm a sucker for REALLY SHARP things, but ugh, i'm going to start repeating myself, but that's what's going on in my head, hahah. Sharp, but not as much reach. IS, but not as sharp. Sharp, but not as much reach. Good amount of reach, but not as sharp.

Is there ANY way I can make this decision easier?

Any input is greatly appreciated. Sorry to bring this upon you guys once again >_>

Depends entirely on what you'll use it for.
Me, I chose the 70-300 because I travel a lot, and a big white zoom attracts unwanted attention in certain places.
Added IS means I can get away with leaving my tripod at home or in the hotel if necessary.
If I wasn't into travel, I'd have chosen the 70-200.
But don't underestimate the 70-300.
My lens is just superb when it comes to Chromatic Abberation, and easily outperforms my two Ls.
Build quality is solid, and whilst not L quality, it's very good.
And optics - well it hasn't been called "Canon's hidden L" for nothing.
All I can say is, don't be fooled into thinking Ls are the be all and end all. They are great lenses no doubt, but consider your circumstances first, and what you need the lens for, then plan accordingly.
And the 70-300 uses L optics by the way.

[LeoDzT]

I'm also ina dilema! Can someone give me an advice? I have the Canon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 IS USM, but I would like to do some sport photographs and I was wondering to buy a IGMA 70-200mm F2.8 HSM II MAC DG EOS. What's the real difference (taking the extra 100mm!)?

Tx,

Leonardo Dominguez

[JohnJ80]

I'm also ina dilema! Can someone give me an advice? I have the Canon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 IS USM, but I would like to do some sport photographs and I was wondering to buy a IGMA 70-200mm F2.8 HSM II MAC DG EOS. What's the real difference (taking the extra 100mm!)?

Tx,

Leonardo Dominguez

1. The better AF you get with most canon cameras with max aperture of f/2.8 or larger.
2. The shallower DOF so you can isolate your subject better.
3. It can take a TC where the other can't and still retain AF.

J.