70-200 or 75-300 [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

pond

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 06:54

I realize that some of this has been covered in the top 10 lens section but it's a lot of money for me so I am looking for some extra help. I am going to purchase a Canon 20d with the (yes I know it's plastic) 18-55 kit lens.
I am pretty sure I am going to purchase the Canon 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM eEF lens and the 580 speedlight flash. I have done all around photography from weddings to parties, portraits to news and commercial to nature and wildlife. Most witha canon f1 , my standard lenses were canon 85/2.8, 135/2.8.
I am havine trouble deciding between the canon lenses 75-300 4.0-5.7 IS USM EF and the and the EF 20-200 f 4.0 They are so close in price. Since they will be on the 20d there is the mag factor of 1.6 so the 300 will be 480 and the 200 will be 320. I also could by the 1.4 tc for the 200 and end up with 448 so the mag is not the issue. I know the l glass will be sharper and clearer but how important is the IS when you get into the 400's. What do you advise and what you buy? Thank you.

darkdrakon

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 09:02

no question buy the 70-200 F/4 L the quality will blow the 75-300 IS out of the water you can check out the reviews here...http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27
FM Reviews - Canon zoom lenses

Mike Panic

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 09:18

^^^

tommykjensen

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 09:21

CoolToolGuy

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 09:28

Go directly to the 70-200 f4L. Do not stop at the 75-300 (any version), as you will not be satisfied until you get the 'L'. If you find you need some extra reach, get the 1.4 TC and you will still have a better image than the 75-300 will give you.

I made the 75-300 mistake, and I wound up carrying it around and not using it because it was so soft at 300mm. I traded it in on the 70-200 f4L, and it was one of the best photographic decisions I ever made.

The cost is a bit more, but hold off and save up if necessary - you will not be sorry.

Have Fun,

Cadwell

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 09:51

Do not even consider the 75-300mm. Canon's 300mm zooms are a woeful lot. Their 70-200mms on the other hand are second to none!

mr.photoguy

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 10:11

My vote sticks to the 70-200 f4.
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/birds

griff2

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 10:30

I got the 75-300, used it a few times, didn't like the softness and chromatic abberation @300mm, so ebayed it towards a 70-200 f/4L.

malla1962

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 12:41

I tried a 75-300 before buying one,i am glad i tried it .looking a t the images i would not want one for free,so i got the 70-200 f4l .when you buy L you know what your getting.
(skint)

tim

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 13:27

If you're loaded another option is the 70-300 DO IS, which is light, compact, has quite good image quality, but costs around $1000.

Medic1

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 14:22

70-200 4L without question

gramps

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 14:26

the 75 - 300 should be outlawed

br3w0k

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 14:45

vote 70-200
unless you really need 300mm ...
normally i crop my picture with 70-200 to get 300 mm reach ...

Persian-Rice

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 14:50

Pond the difference between the two is what a Honda Civic is to a BMW M5. Its more dependent on the money you want to spend.

Tom Barnett

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 16:34

When I started out I compared the too and said "This one goes to 300mm and it's soooo much cheaper." After a few months I was happy just to get rid of the horrible 75-300. I need the 70-200 for sports and low lightting situations. So I traded in my 75-300 and bought a sigma 70-200 (another mistake). Buy the best or you will regret it (at least I did).

It all depends on what you need it for.

I Simonius

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 16:48

Thankyou for posting that question! Exactly what I wanted to ask.
70-200 it is for me too

Sorry to see your loss Persian-Rice hope it was insured!!!

Paul_B

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 17:22

I am havine trouble deciding between the canon lenses 75-300 4.0-5.7 IS USM EF and the and the EF 20-200 f 4.0 They are so close in price.

From someone that has done oh so very much research in the 70-200 field. You will have a hard time finding positive reviews of the 75-300, consumer or web site reviews.

With the 70-200 f4/L, its gonna be a challenge to find Negative reviews on this lens. You cannot find a negative comment about it for it's price/quality.

If this is your price range, and the two are close in price, listen to everyone here and everywhere, the 70-200 F4/L is it.

sharky

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 20:58

Yep, 75-300 is for fun, happy snaps. 70-200L is forever.

pond

9th of March 2005 (Wed), 23:06

Thank you, you have helped me make up my mind to the obvious choice. I'm going withthe 70-200 L. I was a little concerned about not having the IS but no one mentioned it so I believe it is a non issue.

Thanks.

tim

10th of March 2005 (Thu), 00:31

It's not a non-issue, you have to work with what you have, and perhaps use a monopod, or use standard precautions.

sharky

10th of March 2005 (Thu), 00:55

There have been times when I wished I had IS, but there have been more times I was glad to have the extra $1500 (Australian Dollars) to spend on other things. However, be warned that camera shake can be an issue with F4, so bump up the ISO when needed to get an acceptable shutter speed.

Redbird_xo

10th of March 2005 (Thu), 01:01

General comments from people regarding the Canon 75-300 (IS or Mark III) are, for the lack of a better word, terrible at best. The truth is that it performs well within its limitations as a consumer-grade medium telephoto zoom lens. For about $200, you get 300mm (effectively 480mm on 1.6x sensor). The attached pic was taken handheld at 300mm.

ron chappel

10th of March 2005 (Thu), 03:23

I have the 75-300 IS version at the moment and have used the non IS versions as well.

I must say that it's not anywhere close to the magic thing i thought it might be.
It certainly does help get shots that are several stops low in shutter speeds but, as for getting night stadium shots at local rodeos and sports- forget it.It's not even remotely close to being usefull at those.
Or to put it another way-it's a cheapo lens with very expensive image stabilization added that does me little good.Some can certainly justify IS but i don't think i'll consider it again for some time.I'll go for a large aperture lens next

mdr

10th of March 2005 (Thu), 04:00

Have just sold my 75-300 IS and replaced it with a 70-200 f4 L and 1.4x TC, giving me the same reach with L quality. I'm surprised by the difference in the quality of pictures after just trying the new lens on my 20D around the garden for an hour. Sharpness and colour rendering are supurb, autofocus is extremely fast :D.

The difference between the two lenses is unbelievable. I'll easily live without the IS, with the much improved image quality and autofocus.

CoolToolGuy

10th of March 2005 (Thu), 06:28

Redbird-xo's shot of the building is definitely a nice shot, but try that at dawn or sunset. The max aperture is not the issue - the 75-300 IS 'hunts' for AF at low light levels, and is very annoying.

The 75-300s have their good points - price, color(non-obtrusive), price, (hmm, I'm sure there must be more) - but most of the folks who frequent the forums are after something better than the pedestrian versions. If budget issues keep you from going after the 70-200 f4L, well the 75-300 may be the best you can get for now. But the 70-200 f4L is a relative bargain, and shot-for-shot will rival its faster f2.8 brothers within its range. If you see one for sale, it will very rarely be because 'this lens is a piece of poop' (quoting CDS), but rather to get one of the brothers or get a different range. This lens rarely disappoints on the image quality front.

Have Fun,

johneo

10th of March 2005 (Thu), 08:30

The 75-300 IS was the first lens I bought with my 10D (along with the 28-135 IS).
Got some great shots with it but also got a lot of bad ones. As others have said, the hunting for AF was VERY annoying. Guess I would rate the 75-300 IS as an OK lens ... nothing special but it works, if you have the patience to work with it.
Decided to upgrade and went all the way to the 100-400 L IS. Can not even compare that lens to the 75-300 IS. Suffice it to say the price is 3+ times greater but the quality is much more than that.
Had to do over, hind sight being 20/20, I would have spent the extra originally and gone for the 75-200 f/4 L (which happens to be my next lens purchase) and probably also got the 1.4X TC for the extra reach.

baboymo

10th of March 2005 (Thu), 12:28

You can pick up the 70-200 f4L at Dell.com for $519.15 w/free shipping (and free tax depending where you live. Currently 15% off with $75 additional off with thiis coupon: JL6MK$330H9ZT4

must....not....add....to....cart.....nooooooo!

Tom Barnett

17th of March 2005 (Thu), 17:01

I've shot with a 70-200 (canon) for over a year now without ever using a monopod or a tripod. Handholding it is fine, just be careful how slow you shoot with it.

5887451

18th of March 2005 (Fri), 23:47

Skip Souza

19th of March 2005 (Sat), 01:19

I have just got my 75-300 IS USM. I decided to take a chance despite all the negative reviews, as I am a beginner on a tight budget. Maybe I will regret the decision later on as I become more advanced, but for now I am really happy with the lens and have not encountered any of the problems discussed in the reviews.
Here are 2 pictures which I needed to crop to fit them into this posting.

birdhead - EOS 300D 1/320 ISO-100 f6.3 at 300mm (handheld)
moon1 - EOS 300D 1/125 ISO-400 f5.6 at 300mm (handheld)
You did a fine job on those photos. Not everyone can own L glass. I just read a comparison review in which the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS was compared to a 70-200 f/2.8L a 70-200 f/4.0L and two comparable Sigmas. The 70-300 held its' own and dollar per pixel it kicked butt.
A couple of weeks ago I "borrowed" my wife's 70-300 IS and got these shots. I think I did more damage than good in post processing.

chrisvw

19th of March 2005 (Sat), 03:19

My money would be on the 70-200 f/4. I have one and it is a fantastic walkabout lens. I would like a 70-200 f/2.8 though. :D

Oculus Sinister

19th of March 2005 (Sat), 04:09

I also have the 75-300 IS USM. While it certainly has its limitations( the slow AF being the most glaring), I'm quite happy with the results i get from it using an EOS 20D.

A bird shot(forget about panning with it though :) ) Yellow Vented Bulbul
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/medium/MG_2038.jpg

A Spider Macro taken 1.5m at full tele( no Close-up lens)This is a Giant Orb Weaver
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/1229/medium/MG_1695.jpg

A Dragonfly Macro with the 250D CU lens attached to it.
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/medium/MG_2235.jpg