70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM vs 70-200 f/4L (non IS)

Want to add a telephoto lens for some more reach. Will use on a 6D and SL1 bodies. I've narrowed it down to these 2 lenses as it fits my budget and generally what I'm looking for. I don't have anything specific I'm looking to shoot with this lens, just whatever might require some more reach. Honestly I don't shoot in this range a lot, so the lens probably won't get used much, but I do want to have something in my bag that can give me a bit more reach.

Seems like it's basically more reach and IS vs slightly faster, better build, and better IQ.

The 70-300 is a really good-for-the-money 70-270 lens. At the long end, it is fairly soft, but you can't beat it for the money (if you buy used). It focuses relatively slowly, which may or may not be a problem for you and what you shoot. I think the big difference is aperture. If you can shoot at f/8 (to sharpen up the long end), go for the IS and a bit more reach. If you need a faster (aperture) lens, go with the 70-200.

If you stick to only the SL1, any of the efs 55-250mm lenses is better than the 70-300. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, better IQ. None of them will mount on the 6D.

Bassat wrote in post #17931091
The 70-300 is a really good-for-the-money 70-270 lens. At the long end, it is fairly soft, but you can't beat it for the money (if you buy used). It focuses relatively slowly, which may or may not be a problem for you and what you shoot. I think the big difference is aperture. If you can shoot at f/8 (to sharpen up the long end), go for the IS and a bit more reach. If you need a faster (aperture) lens, go with the 70-200.

If you stick to only the SL1, any of the efs 55-250mm lenses is better than the 70-300. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, better IQ. None of them will mount on the 6D.

Wow, I do miss these 70-300/70-200 f/4 threads! They used to be legend here and over at photo.net.

I always loved my 70-300 but I think Bassat hits the nail for the most part. If you can live with f/8, the 70-300 is the way to go - actually pretty good even at 300mm.

I also like the 70-300 on my SL1 much more than the 55-250 (even when I had the STM version). The 70-300 feels better, is built better, balances better (even on the SL1) and the IQ is indistinguishable from that achieved by the 55-250 STM. People will point to test results on that final point, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Now, I have never owned (and only briefly tried) the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). But I do own the IS version of the 70-200 f/4. That is a rather superior lens.

The OP's choice as to getting either the L or the 70-300 should be based on: does he need IS, does he need 300mm, does he mind the white color of the L lens, will the white lens (and its length) be denied entry to certain arenas/stadiums (yes, absolutely), does he want better glass (L is better), does he want better resale value (L is better), does he want to spend a lot less (70-300 used).

I agree with Eastport on the 70-300, but I do want to clarify one thing. The 70-300 is NOT garbage at the long end. It is softer than it is at shorter FL. It does sharpen up quite a bit at 300mm if stopped down to f/8. It is not useless at 300, just not on its best behavior. On crop, I thought my 55-250 II was better at 250 & f/5.6 than the 70-300 was at 300 and f/5.6. Opinions vary. Any of the 70-200mm lenses are superior the 70-300, and they are priced accordingly. Every lens is a compromise in one feature or another. The 70-300 is a lot of lens for the little bit of money they go for used.

Here is a shot (SOC) taken a few years back by me with the SL1 and 70-300 IS (non-L):

300mm
f/8
ISO 400
ss 1/1250

The second shot of the same tanker is the wide angle (with the 18-135 STM) to give you some perspective of how far away the tanker was from where I was standing.

Not to add more confusion to the mix but the Tamron 70-300 VC should also be looked at here. Personally I would save a little more for the IS version of the 70-200/4.

FEChariot wrote in post #17931650
Not to add more confusion to the mix but the Tamron 70-300 VC should also be looked at here. Personally I would save a little more for the IS version of the 70-200/4.

Or the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS.

Nethawked wrote in post #17931659
Or the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS.

doh

I really hate going through all the headaches of choosing one.

had the 70-300 tamron, similar to the 70-300 usm in optics from what I've researched, maybe a tad better. 300 is not super strong.

70-300L, well improved, but size starts getting big

70-400 sony, based on my research on dxo with comparable bodies, beats out all 70-300 options at all focal lengths but size is straight up large. Canon's 100-400ii is the same way.

so that leaves us with the 70-300L or 70-200L.... and I think I'de choose the 70-300L for the extra 100mm. Neither lens is good indoors, so might as well get the one with more range.

I personally shoot with a 200mm prime due to it's ridiculously small footprint, and happens to be tack sharp as the case with most long prime telephotos.

Charlie wrote in post #17931677
doh

I really hate going through all the headaches of choosing one.

had the 70-300 tamron, similar to the 70-300 usm in optics from what I've researched, maybe a tad better. 300 is not super strong.

70-300L, well improved, but size starts getting big

70-400 sony, based on my research on dxo with comparable bodies, beats out all 70-300 options at all focal lengths but size is straight up large. Canon's 100-400ii is the same way.

so that leaves us with the 70-300L or 70-200L.... and I think I'de choose the 70-300L for the extra 100mm. Neither lens is good indoors, so might as well get the one with more range.

I personally shoot with a 200mm prime due to it's ridiculously small footprint, and happens to be tack sharp as the case with most long prime telephotos.

In my experience you'd be hard-pressed to discern IQ difference between the 70-300L or 70-200L f/4. The 70-300mm is about 10oz heavier and a good bit shorter, I quite liked the beer keg design after using it. The big difference, which I learned to enjoy better in a lens this size, is the rear focus ring on the 70-300mm. It was a PITA to adapt to, but I found better handheld stability during MF with the ring closer to the camera body. Another issue that may affect some, only Kenko teleconverters are compatible with this lens due to close placement of rear element.

Nope, neither is great in low light, which is why I had to replace my 70-200mm with the latest f/2.8 model. That lens falls into a different category altogether.

I got a few good shots with the old 70-300 IS non-L at 300:

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17931012
Want to add a telephoto lens for some more reach. Will use on a 6D and SL1 bodies. I've narrowed it down to these 2 lenses as it fits my budget and generally what I'm looking for. I don't have anything specific I'm looking to shoot with this lens, just whatever might require some more reach. Honestly I don't shoot in this range a lot, so the lens probably won't get used much, but I do want to have something in my bag that can give me a bit more reach.

Seems like it's basically more reach and IS vs slightly faster, better build, and better IQ.

Heya,

Depends on your needs really. From your sig, it seems anything over 85mm will be long for you on that 6D (while you already have the 55-250 for your SL1). So it comes down to how much telephoto you think you need. There are a few things to consider.

Tamron 70-300 VC - Just another contender, good modern VC, good optics, good price.
Canon 70-300 IS - Another option as you already know, good optics, decent price for a Canon, ok IS.
Canon 70-200 F4L - Another option as you already know, great optics, fast AF, no IS, all-internal-moving-parts.

But how about:

Canon 35-350L? It's discontinued which makes it cheaper to buy. This lens is mostly "forgotten" these days. It's USM and L quality, granted, as a "super zoom" essentially. It was replaced by the 28-300L which is costly. But the old 35-350 is about $700 these days. A bit over budget, but you get serious reach and a huge focal range, with a quality lens. Worth considering perhaps! It's a push-pull design like the 100-400 by the way. And while on that subject, the 100-400 is actually in your budget range at this point too, around $700 used. These are actually quite compact for their focal lengths.

There's also the Canon 70-300 DO. A costly lens, but it's super compact. Probably beyond budget, but figured it's interesting enough to point out at least.

If you need the most compact thing you can find in the budget range, the zooms that have external moving parts are smaller overall (70-300's). However, personally, I would pick the 70-200 over those every time. Here's my reason: it has everything to do with the mechanical parts and moving parts of the lenses being internalized. I'm rough and I go into nasty places, gear that is made to survive bumps and drops will last longer and is worth more to me than something cheap that will fall apart after a single bump. Those external zooms (70-300's) can be tapped or bumped and suddenly have serious issues. To me, I'd rather have the added protection of an all-internal-design, like the 70-200. The compromise is that the 70-200 is bigger overall because of this and thus takes up more space. The 70-300's are smaller when folded down in their smallest form. But again, if this is for long term, just gotta decide what features are most important to you.

Also, if you care, the 70-200 will sell later on in life if you feel the need to, easier. Moot point, but it might matter to you.

Very best,

EF 70-200 4L USM:
-much better IQ
-much better and faster AF
-much better construction

EF 70-300 IS USM:
-100mm longer
-image stabilizer

However, 70-200 4L can be used with 1.4x teleconverter - having still better IQ than 70-300 IS.

I had them both, my choice is absolutely 70-200 4L !

I had the 70-300 non-IS. Not impressed with focus speed or IQ at 300mm.

I've been using the 100-400Lc for years. It is better glass than the 70-300 & 70-300L. (Longer, better at 300mm, does 400mm, but the IS is weak.)

I also have the 70-200 f/4L IS. It is excellent and plays well with the EF 1.4x TC II. Not so much the Kenko 1.4X Pro 300 DRG.

The 100-400L II trumps the I-version in modern IS, AF speed and 400mm IQ.

Get the best you can afford. In the end, it doesn't make a ton of difference.