The Final Decision EF 70-300 VS EF 70-200

I feel like a nice telephoto will do good to my small lens collection

I am having a really hard time chosing between the EF 70-200L f/4 and the EF 70-300.

So i decided to share my thoughts with you:

EF 70-200[COLOR=Red]L f/4 VS EF 70-300IS:
[COLOR=Black]
70-200L:

• [COLOR=Red][COLOR=Blac​k][COLOR=Red]L [COLOR=Black]Lens!!! (Optics quality, build quality, red Line)
  
  
• Faster in most of the zoom range (F wise)
  
• Ring USM & Faster focus(I must admit I never use the Full-time focus in my 28-135IS I would love to hear if some one finds it useful and why)
  
• You can actually use it in vertical orientation all around the zoom range

• Extra 100mm
  
• Size (will fit in my Lowepro Orion Trekker II backpack together with the rest of my gear)
  
• Weight
  
• Black color (I would want to use this lens for street photography without attracting too much attention)
  
• IS (I like it in my 28-135)

L to win. Are there any reasons I should change my mind? .

My nod goes to the IS lens...barely.

Well you are travelling... 70-200 for using all the time when you get back from your trip as well. And if you ever want to sell -won't a white lens sell faster?

gugu, I'm interested in seeing how this thread plays out for you. I'm in the same lens buying decision that you are, but have muddied the waters even more by throwing the 200 f2.8L into the mix. All 3 basically the same price and weight. Good luck with your dilema, I'll follow the post to see if it helps with mine. Do take a look @ fstops site, he makes a good argument for the 70-300.

Do you have the link?

Thanks!

For travel, range is nice. Could you swing the 70-200 and a 1.4x TC. That'd give you almost the reach, lacking only the IS, and be a bit faster up to 200. IQ at 280 mm wouldn't be much differnet from the 70-300 either.

It's in the signature of his post.

ops, thanks crn3371

I am a big fan of reach and IS. I understand that the new 70-300 IS is much improved over the old 75-300 IS. If the 70-200 f/4 had IS then it would be much more difficult. As it is I could only support the 70-200 if I had a TC.

i had them both and i can say hands down the 70-200 L. i felt that the 70-300 was bulilt like crap and i was not a fan of the pic quality either. i had the 70-200 and it was one if the best lenses i have ever used. it is light enough to be handheld and the pics quality is just amazing. sure, the IS is nice and the extra 100mm is a welcome edition but not at the price of crappy built quality, rotating front element and no FTM or lens hood.

I have both the 70-200 (but I have the 2.8 IS) and the new 70-300. They are differen lenses for different purposes. In my case the weight difference between the two is the size and weight (and built, and quality etc...). I do have very little hands on experience with the 70-200/4 but AFAIK is a nice, light versatile and high quality lens. And surely sells better if you want to change it later.

The 70-300 has more reach and I am very pleased by its IQ (even in vertical ). Surely its more snikey than the white one. Do not expect the L built because its not. But the 100mm extra, wanting to travel light, can be really something. Plus, the IS is absolutely excellent.

So I would say that, for your immediate purposes, the 70-300 would be your best bet. If you are dissatisfied in the long run you can still resell it, surely you will loose a little more money than with the L but if in the meantime it has done its job I don't see that as a problem. Traveling with a lot of stuff in the bag can be a pain in the butt. And the 70-300 is extremely light. As far as aperure goes, there is no big difference (it would have been different if you were willing to go with the 2.8) and the IS compensates a lot, as usual not for moving subjects. So, in this case, my vote goes for the 70-300.

gugu wrote:
I actually wanted the L to win. Are there any reasons I should change my mind? .

I feel strongly about the 70-300 when trying to think objectively.

I feel that YOU should win, not the lens and by winning, I mean picking the lens that suits your needs. I went through this exact decision too. I've shot the 70-200 f/4L (on a 5D too! beautiful.. both the lens and camera) and the 70-300 IS USM. Both are similar in price.

I actually like white and red.. but I felt that I should be buying something that suits my requirements. My 17-85 introduced me to the magic of IS, I've been able to pull off shots that would have simply been impossible. IS will not replace shutter speed, but I always for some reason find myself in situations where I can get enough shutter speed to stop action - but not stop handshake. This is where IS will be truly worthwhile. There have been rarer situations where I shoot in good enough light that I can simply turn off IS and use all the shutter speed I want (1/1000-1/1250 at f/8!), but those are few and far between.

IS will preserve the lens' useability in more situations. For everyday people, say, like you'd find on the streets and at events (vs sports, action) - you don't need that high a shutter speed to 'freeze' them. You may also find yourself shooting in lower light (indoors is a killer).

For shutter speed, try cranking up the ISO a little bit. f/4 constant and f/4-5.6 variable aperture aren't that much difference especially since bumping the ISO up one speed gives you a whole extra stop. If we were discussing the f/2.8L vs the 70-300.. then of course, there is absolutely no contest

Image quality is outstanding. I took a picture of the crowd at an event and I could even read the tiny little name tags they handed out! Reach is good too, some days I find I need ALL the reach I can get, and that means 300mm on a 1.6X camera (480mm equiv FOV). I'd rate it on par with the 70-200 f/4L I handled.

Build quality of the 70-300 IS USM is not on par with the L, unfortunately. I get the 'feel' that the L can handle anything I throw at it, whereas I have to baby the 70-300 (which I generally do with my equipment anyway..mmmmm...precio​ussssss ) The zoom tends to creep as well, when pointed down. Judicious use of the zoom lock in storage is advised. I may be lucky - I can't deny the results of fstopjojo's excellent tests about this lens' flaws in portrait mode, but I have not experienced them on my copy. I hope mine continues to hold up as it gets used!

Now if Canon added IS to the 70-200 f/4L at the same price point, I wouldn't even think about the 70-300 IS USM! Guess they'll keep me waiting quite a while for this, though.

Good luck with your decision. I hope it works out for you!

Thanks for all the replays\votes

I got the 70-300 today.
First impression:
The build quality is a bit disappointing, I was expecting it to be like the 28-135.
And the IS seems to work really well, better than the 28-135 IS.
I really like the zoom range.

I am hoping for good weather tomorrow so I could really see how good the IQ is.
I didn't get 70-200 because I decided to compromise quality for comfort.
Maybe one day I will get the 70-200 f/2.8.

You won't be disappointed. I have the 70-300 and the bigger brother (2.8 IS), Of course there ARE a lot of differences, but the IQ for the price is excellent.