Cheaper lens with IS or L lens?

[Spargo]

I know that the L lenses have the best quality. However I have a couple questions. I noticed that there is a Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS for around $415. My question is, would there really be THAT much of a loss in image quality over the 70-200 f/4L? I would really enjoy that extra 100mm and IS for that price...

[Kenski]

I know that the L lenses have the best quality. However I have a couple questions. I noticed that there is a Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS for around $415. My question is, would there really be THAT much of a loss in image quality over the 70-200 f/4L? I would really enjoy that extra 100mm and IS for that price...

You said it right there... 4-5.6

That is where you are losing your money...

[Spargo]

But in order to get that extra reach, I'd need to get a 1.4x teleconverter. And if I understand this right, wouldn't it make the L lens an f/5.6 then? And even then I'm at 280mm instead of 300...

[sjg_studios]

I have the 70-200 and my dad has the 75-300IS. Looking at both (side by side) I would say if you want the utmost in quality, go with the "L". To me, it makes all the difference to have most photos come out GREAT than to be dissappointed ( all in the name of 100mm).

For the money, I wouldn't trade my 70-200mm. If I needed the extra reach, I would move with my feet.

That's just my opinion.

Scott

[Spargo]

So you think that the 70-200 + 1.4x is the way to go?

[Sherpa]

I've recently bought the 70-200 f/4 and the 1.4x converter, and I haven't been disappointed. It's an ideal combo for flexibility.

[Spargo]

Isn't there a 2x converter that works with that lens? That would be great. I'm aware it would go to f/8 but that may be just fine outdoors in good light.

[Spargo]

I just remembered, with the 2x you lose autofocus. Poo. 1.4x it is I guess.

[Sherpa]

The L lens does draw peoples attention though, which sometimes can be a good thing. I was recently taking some pics of windsurfers in quite close to the shore. When they saw me they came towards me and looking at the pics I can see by their eyes that they were watching and 'performing' for me. Believe me, the white lens looks really cool, and the contrast in the pictures is excellent.

[Spargo]

You should get a lens hood that spreads out to a 1 foot diameter and has flashing neon lights. That will get some attention. :P

[Sherpa]

LOL! It doesn't need enhancing in any way - it's a bazooka!

http://img27.exs.cx/img27/7366/IMG_0360.jpg

[drisley]

So you think that the 70-200 + 1.4x is the way to go?
I agree!

[CoolToolGuy]

I had the 75-300 IS, and after the first couple of shots with it I parked it in my bag due to softness of the images. I brought it out from time to time, and always had disappointing results. I felt like I didn't have a lens in that range. I eventually made the move to sell it and get the 70-200 f4L and the 1.4 TC. It is one of the best equipment decisions I have ever made. By itself, the 70-200 is incredibly better than the 75-300 IS, and with the TC the 70-200 is still better, and you are no worse off aperture-wise. With a loss of 20mm (the 70-200 with the TC is 280mm), the difference is almost imperceptable.

For me, the choice between them is a no-brainer. No matter what the difference in the focal length, if you don't use the lens it doesn't matter how much you saved by buying it. Stretch a little bit to get the 70-200 f4L, and you will see what I mean. Even if you crop the image from the 70-200 you will likely get better results than with the 75-300 IS. If you can stretch the wallet a little more, go for the 1.4 TC and you will be set to 300mm.

Yes, it is a white lens and it may attract attention, but until and unless Canon starts making them in black I will deal with it.

Have Fun,

[Boosting1Bar]

My question is, would there really be THAT much of a loss in image quality over the 70-200 f/4L? I would really enjoy that extra 100mm and IS for that price...

The answer to the first question is yes. As for the extra 100mm, every post you've made on this board you seem hellbent on buying a 300mm or more zoom, so why not just buy that instead of asking the same question over and over? The quality of the 75-300 sucks next to the 70-200L, but if you want the 300mm zoom then you aren't going to be happy with the 70-200. Just buy the 75-300 and if you don't like it or aren't happy with the sharpness, sell it and get the 70-200.

[johneo]

I don't have the 70-200 L (it's on my wish list ... an early Xmas present to myself? :twisted: )
I did have the 75-300 IS (it was my 1st choice for a lens when I got my 10D)
I do have the 100-400 L IS (all I can say is WOW! :shock: )

I liked the 75-300 IS ... BUT ... I think the lens was a little soft as others have noted. I also didn't care for the AF on it and much of the time shut it off. It has a tendency to hunt if you move from subject to subject and that means a lot of travel of the barrel in and out. Still, it's not a bad lens.

If the 70-200 L is ANYTHING near the quality of the 100-400 (even without IS) that's the one to go for. There is a HUGE difference in quality between the 75-300 IS and the 100-400 L IS so even without the IS I'd say go for the "L"

[DocFrankenstein]

I know that the L lenses have the best quality. However I have a couple questions. I noticed that there is a Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS for around $415. My question is, would there really be THAT much of a loss in image quality over the 70-200 f/4L? I would really enjoy that extra 100mm and IS for that price...
70-200 all the way. It's much more sharper and better and faster and cooler and redder striper and I'm so excited cause I got the flash!

70-300 sucks. IS or no IS, it sucks.

[Chris P Bacon]

Can somebody please post a couple of comparison shots, I'm considering getting one of these too and I'd really like to see the difference before I buy.

thanks

[DAMphyne]

You are so right!
I have used the 75-300 IS lens for 2 years, replacing a 75-300 Tamron zoom.
This lens stays on my 10D almost all the time, shooting sports and flowers and what-ever else gets in front of my camera.
So far all it has done is "Suck" money into my pocket.
I know that if I had an L lens, I'd probably be rich by now.
I'd get one but I don't like the "throwback" push-pull zoom, and Canon doesn't make a long zoom with the rotating zoom.
Isuppose I'll just stick with this junker until it wears out.
By then I should be able to afford a "good" lens.

[blue-glass]

Never heard that one posed before!

[markrodgers]

I have an Eos 300D 18-55 Kit and have recently purchased the 70-200 f4L after choosing it over the 75-300IS based only on reviews. I felt that spending the extra money here would be worthwhile given the partially negative reviews of the 75-300 lenses. I have since not been dissappointed with my new lense the build quility in itself is remarkable. The 75-300IS was going to cost me £300 & I spent £420 on the 70-200 f4L. :wink:

[John57]

I had a 75-300IS and now have a 70-200L 2.8 + 100-400L. The 'L' lenses are all very noticeably better in image quality than their standard counterparts (as you would expect!)..... but I actually found the images from my 75-300IS not too bad - what did me in and the main reason I sold it was the appalling autofocus..... so slow and forever hunting. In this area there is simply no comparison whatsoever to an 'L' lens.

[antaine]

What lenght is the 70-200/4 L?

I have the canon kit bag that i got with the 300D - it fits the 75-300 fine; just wanted to know how much bigger the 70-200/4 L? would be?

thanks

A. :D

[Boosting1Bar]

What lenght is the 70-200/4 L?

I have the canon kit bag that i got with the 300D - it fits the 75-300 fine; just wanted to know how much bigger the 70-200/4 L? would be?

thanks

A. :D

The 70-200 f/4L is 6.8"
The 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS is 5-7/16"

The 70-200 is a bit more than 1" longer.

[antaine]

thanks, that will fit just fine - any good suppliers? (I'm in Ireland) so uk will do. Just if I buy in usa might get caught for custum tax.

[montyl]

Shortly after buying my D60, I bought the Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS and I can tell you that I am no really impressed with it, even though it has the IS. It is my thoughts that this is Canon's first generation IS lens, as I also have the 28-135mm IS lense and love it. But the 75-300mm, it is slow, and loud. I personnally would not recommend it, buy the L glass.

[antaine]

Montyl, I already bought the 75-300 3 months ago in Canada. But I can probably sell it in Ireland and loose about 10-20% of the value (the non IS).

it's okay for a beginner lense - but after spending the last few months looking at 'L' photos on the net, its time to change.

A.

[Boosting1Bar]

Shortly after buying my D60, I bought the Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS and I can tell you that I am no really impressed with it, even though it has the IS. It is my thoughts that this is Canon's first generation IS lens, as I also have the 28-135mm IS lense and love it. But the 75-300mm, it is slow, and loud. I personnally would not recommend it, buy the L glass.

I agree. I had both at one point and the IS in the 75-300 is quite inferior to that in the 28-135. The 28-135 quickly stabilizes and takes a bit of movement to throw it off, whereas with the 75-300 it seemed that the IS took as long as the focus to finally settle in and even then was easily shaken. If I would've gotten the 75-300 first, I wouldn't have gotten the 28-135 thinking the IS just sucks. Fortunately I had the 28-135 first and it actually influenced my purchase of the 75-300. I only kept it about a week and a half and the focus/sharpness/contrast were just unacceptable for the price paid.

[Tomsk]

thanks, that will fit just fine - any good suppliers? (I'm in Ireland) so uk will do. Just if I buy in usa might get caught for custum tax.

www.7dayshop.com

Try talking to these guys. Even including UK VAT @ 17.5% there amongst thr cheapest in the UK.

[karusel]

Spargo, you're asking us whether to get a consumer or semi-pro lens. On a semi-pro - pro comparison, the differences could be described as subtle, pro's are faster, have IS, sometimes nicer bokeh, etc, etc. The consumer lens deliver exactly what they promise; an average consumer (film!) doesn't print big (they say it is in most cases near to impossible to spot a difference between L and non-L on a regular print size photo), and doesn't shoot much, so it would really be waste of money if he bought an L. In a digital world things aren't that much differend EXCEPT if you crop your image or enlarge it, that's when you'll know where the extra $$$ went. Even only because you're thinking about L's tells me you want your shots to be as flawless as posibble tech-wise at least, so in conclusion: buy that L. And don't forget that if you get the f/4 version, with 1.4 TC you won't have a lot of light to play with, so sunshine or tripod it is.

I wanted to buy the 70-200L, but I also wanted more reach and didn't want having to deal with TC's, so I bought 100-400L instead (for now - couldn't afford both at the same time). With this lens, despite its 640mm on a 10D you will be noticed trying to steal some candids in the crowd. I was so disappointed. :lol: But seriously, it really is not difficult to spot a glass pipe this size from any angle...

Note: when girls spot you as you photographed them, in 90% they give you a big smile. I love this lens.

[timmyquest]

Cheaper lens with IS or L lens?

The answer to your question is in your question its self.

When in doubt...go with the L.

[Boosting1Bar]

Note: when girls spot you as you photographed them, in 90% they give you a big smile. I love this lens.

Ain't that the truth. I love when that happens.