70-200mm f/4L versus 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5

So, I have two choices here. I can get the 70-200mm f/4L (non IS) for $425, or the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5mm for $150. Is the difference between the two really enough to justify the extra price? I'm someone that definitely would prefer the cheaper version, but if I'll be unhappy with the 70-210mm, then I'd rather get the 70-200mm. Seriously though, honest answers...L is not always better. Thank you!

Yes Get the L. Variable lenses can be a pain and the 70-200 is in a different class. Most of the time with glass you get what you pay for. Few expections the 50mm 1.8 cheapy and plastic...but most people can't tell the difference between it in the 1.4 and 1.8 unless their a major photographer nerd (thats a compliment lol)

Do you like big white lenses? What is the intended use?

I have the 70-210 and enjoy it. It is sharp, small, discreet, and black. I use it primarily for landscape work, so I stop it down to f/8 - 11 anyway. Its small size makes it easy to carry and it matches well with my Rebel body. I put it on a tripod so lack of IS doesn't matter too much. The ring USM focusing is fast and quiet. I put the money that I saved instead of buying an L towards some nice filters that make a bigger improvement in my photos than the incremental benefit that you'd see at landscape apertures between these lenses. And speaking of filters, that front element doesn't rotate when focusing, so circular polarizer and grad ND use is much easier than on the 55-250 that I had before or the 70-300 that I was considering instead.

Different strokes.

i've owned both. the L is another class. get it.

Hmmm, I'm a bit worried about the size and weight of the 70-200mm, along with the fact that I'm obviously going to be a lot more obvious when photographing things such as people, which is trouble enough already.

parodying wrote in post #15554934
Hmmm, I'm a bit worried about the size and weight of the 70-200mm, along with the fact that I'm obviously going to be a lot more obvious when photographing things such as people, which is trouble enough already.

I havent used the 70-210, but i own the 70-200 F/4L and its an awesome lens for its price tag!

I dont find it THAT heavy to lug around, even on 2 hours walk on a recently trip to Europe. Yes, its kinda large and gets some attention, but you can have it covered with black neoprene to make it look more stealth.

The L is not always better but in this case it is. The 70-200 F/4L is the best Canon L you can get for a decent price. I had the Canon 70 to 300 and Sigma 70 to 300 and they were terrible.

If you look around you might be able to pick up a Sigma 70 to 200 F 2.8 for a decent price but it is a BEAST.

Echoing everyone's responses here. The 70-200 f4 is amazing. Got the non-IS first but sold it after 2 days and got the IS version. No noticeable difference in weight.

The 70-200 f4 IS's weight feels very similar to the 24-105 so it's not heavy at all.

Though I switched to the IS version, the non-IS one is no slouch. The IQ is right up there. I was amazed with the images it can produce.

parodying wrote in post #15554934
Hmmm, I'm a bit worried about the size and weight of the 70-200mm, along with the fact that I'm obviously going to be a lot more obvious when photographing things such as people, which is trouble enough already.

your priorities aren't the same as mine and you seem to have much unwarranted fear and angst. get the 70-200L and when using it keep repeating:

"i am not the center of the universe. people are not looking at me."

parodying wrote in post #15554302
So, I have two choices here. I can get the 70-200mm f/4L (non IS) for $425, or the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5mm for $150. Is the difference between the two really enough to justify the extra price? I'm someone that definitely would prefer the cheaper version, but if I'll be unhappy with the 70-210mm, then I'd rather get the 70-200mm. Seriously though, honest answers...L is not always better. Thank you!

I've owned the 70-210 f/3.5-4.5. I've shot L-lenses. Get the 70-200 f/4. It is a HUGELY better lens.

I used both.

For the prize of the 70-210, you won't get a better lens, BUT it is USED, and most likely has no warranty...

The 70-200 f/4, is a bit better in Image Quality, a lot better in build quality, and most importantly, it still has Warranty.

But its your decision, If you ask me, is the 70-210 worth getting, I say: Yes, get it, its a great lens!
The same is true for the 70-200 f/4...

In image quality you won't find such a big difference.

NemethR wrote in post #15556584
I used both.

For the prize of the 70-210, you won't get a better lens, BUT it is USED, and most likely has no warranty...

The 70-200 f/4, is a bit better in Image Quality, a lot better in build quality, and most importantly, it still has Warranty.

But its your decision, If you ask me, is the 70-210 worth getting, I say: Yes, get it, its a great lens!
The same is true for the 70-200 f/4...

In image quality you won't find such a big difference.

Ok. Not much difference in IQ, if you shoot at f/5.6 or narrower. I've owned the 70-210, and agree is it a decent lens. It is not sharp at f/4.5, at either end of the zoom. At f/5.6 it is very good. The 70-200 f/4 is very good (I hear) at f/4. Is the extra stop of light worth $300 more? Lots of people think it is.

My 70-210 suffered from pretty bad zoom-creep, too. Harmless, but annoying. I don't think 70-200 f/4s have that problem.

TSchrief wrote in post #15557391
Is the extra stop of light worth $300 more? Lots of people think it is.

My 70-210 suffered from pretty bad zoom-creep, too

The L wins in the folowwing areas:

- Constant F4 aperture.
- Better build quality.
- Internal zooming (no lens creep).
- Better resale value.

If the above is worth spending the $300 for the L, then, by al means, get one!, you wont be dissapointed.

The L can be purchased for really cheap nowadays, either new or used, and its a lens thats proven its value and quality over and over again.

i got my 70 210 3.5 for under 100$ and its mint, i dont think i could get a better resale value. Ive had it for years and for what I paid for it its great. But would I trade it for an f4? Yep.