Lens choice, 70-300f/4-5.6 and 70-200f/4

Hi everyone, i have a choice to make.
Let me first say my main subjects are Sports(paintball), and nature aswell, mostly birds. I have a budget of ~500.00 so im looking at the Canon 70-300f/4-5.6 IS or the 70-200f/4. The main difference in the len's i notice is the IS. Do you think ill really need the IS for sports and birds? The extra 100mm is a plus, but i suppose i can live with out it.

Any help is appricated.

What's wrong with the 70-300 APO Macro in your sig? That covers that distance and is not that bad a lens.

Its just, a lower quailty lens. Its soft wide open awell.

I didn't mean the last post to be rude or anything, it would just help to know what you think you are missing with that lens to give an opinion on one of the two lenses you have mentioned.

Well, it is kind of six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. Both are good lenses in different ways. I was faced with a similar choice, and I am going with the 70-200 F4. My choice was made for better build, constant aperture that is sharp wide open and better overall IQ. However, I am not tracking rapidly moving objects, so the IS was not really a concern for me. Your best choice would be the new IS version of the 70-200, but that is twice the price. So in the end, you need to look at what and how you shoot and decide if IS is a real need or not. If you find it is, your choice is made.

By the way, here is another thread on this very subject for you, it was on page two. As you can tell, this is a very common decision.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=243086

I find IS pretty much useless for sports photography. It may well be useful for you when birding.

bdpAKAknox wrote in post #2306759
Hi everyone, i have a choice to make.
Let me first say my main subjects are Sports(paintball), and nature aswell, mostly birds. I have a budget of ~500.00 so im looking at the Canon 70-300f/4-5.6 IS or the 70-200f/4. The main difference in the len's i notice is the IS. Do you think ill really need the IS for sports and birds? The extra 100mm is a plus, but i suppose i can live with out it.

Any help is appricated.

No choice at all. Pick the 70-200 f/4 for its better image quality.

The 70-300 is a flawed product. Pass on it.

If you need IS, you can obtain it at low cost later by using a monopod.

for what you describe, IS isn't going to be that helpful.

Even then, a tradeup to the f/4 IS version will get you the best IS that canon has right now. Selling L glass you loose very little over what you paid especially if you buy the non IS version used. There are a number of them available right now because of the IS version's introduction.

J.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #2307348
No choice at all. Pick the 70-200 f/4 for its better image quality.

The 70-300 is a flawed product. Pass on it.

If you need IS, you can obtain it at low cost later by using a monopod.

for what you describe, IS isn't going to be that helpful.

Even then, a tradeup to the f/4 IS version will get you the best IS that canon has right now. Selling L glass you loose very little over what you paid especially if you buy the non IS version used. There are a number of them available right now because of the IS version's introduction.

J.

Couldn't agree anymore! Exactly what I was getting read to say.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #2307348
No choice at all. Pick the 70-200 f/4 for its better image quality...The 70-300 is a flawed product. Pass on it...If you need IS, you can obtain it at low cost later by using a monopod.

John, I completely agree that the L is clearly the better optically (viz., sharpness, contrast, flare, bokeh, distortions, CA). But keeping everything in perspective, along with the fact that every lens choice is in some way a compromise, the 7-3IS is a very good lens. It fills a niche for a lot of people and Joe Smith Travelers. Its especially good for those who want maximum convenience, excellent IQ for most-sized prints, inconspicuous "black", and all at a fair price-point. I wouldn't say it's "flawed", and throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. Also, part of the "maximum convenience" of this lens is not only its 70-300 focal range (no need for TC though it can take one), but the fact that it's a small 300mm image stabilized package. For many people (and obviously for those many folks who have bought this lens), they don't care one bit to carry a monopod, especially for travel or walking around with the family while carrying a 6-month old in a Baby Bjorn. So just keeping it all in perspective here, playing a little devil's advocate (even though I got rid of my 7-3IS for the new f4 IS), and sticking up for the non-L. The L is definitely the better lens, but the 7-3IS has its real and practical perks.

LightRules wrote in post #2308091
the fact that every lens choice is in some way a compromise, the 7-3IS is a very good lens. It fills a niche for a lot .

Agree with Lightrules, everything is a compromise, that's no perfect lens. 70-300 is sharp lens at a decent price. 70-200 F4 is a compomise as well without 300mm and IS.

bdpAKAknox wrote in post #2306759
Hi everyone, i have a choice to make.
Let me first say my main subjects are Sports(paintball), and nature aswell, mostly birds. I have a budget of ~500.00 so im looking at the Canon 70-300f/4-5.6 IS or the 70-200f/4. The main difference in the len's i notice is the IS. Do you think ill really need the IS for sports and birds? The extra 100mm is a plus, but i suppose i can live with out it.

Any help is appricated.

if you are after the best image quality, fast and accurate AF and durability get the L lens. you can always pick up a 1.4 TC.

the L lens with the 1.4 TC will give you better IQ than the 70-300.

ed rader

of the two reasonable 70-300 IS choices (DO and otherwise), neither is a cheap lens - $559 and $1100 compared to the 70-200 f/4 which is just about the same as the cheapest of the two ($579). Given that the the two 70-300's are variable aperture and go to f/5.6 at the long end, a stop of the IS is given up anyhow at the longer focal lengths and the best they provide is 3 stops (canon's claim) anyhow. I think it is fair to say, that the 3 stops is optimistic and not nominal performance. Actual performance would be 1-2 stops nominal. That means that they they only get 0-1 stops more than the 70-200 f/4 - diminishing returns and probably fairly equivalent performance in this context.

For outside shooting, except near dusk or before dawn, the IS is not going to be that big of a deal for the shooting listed.

On the other hand, the IQ of the 70-200 f/4 is considerably better than a 'very good' 70-300. Yes, these are good lenses, but the 70-200 is arguably the best zoom that Canon makes.

So, I see purchasing either one of the 70-300's to be either the same money as a 70-200 or considerably more and in any event, suffering the IQ department. Other than size - and only the DO version is much shorter and the color (white vs black - easily remedied by applying velcro wrap of neoprene) there is virtually no advantage over the 70-200 f/4.

On top of that, the 70-200 offers much better build, better contrast, better color saturation in addition to the better sharpness.

In comparing the DO to the 70-200 f/4, one would still be better off with a 1.4x tx on this lens over the DO - you would have better image quality and better perforamance plus you would save considerable money in the process.

So, If this is the choice given, then it is a very easy one.

J

Yes, both the 7-3 IS lenses are 300 f5.6 (and also at f5.6 @ 280). If you add a 1.4x to the 7-2f4, you have a 280 f5.6 as well.

I haven't found that to ever be the case with any IS lens I've used. With the 7-3IS, I could consistently get 1/60th sharp shots (480mm FOV) and 4 stops and even 5 stops (1/15th) was not out of the question. IS is also very useful for certain types of panning captures. I know LeeJay (DPR) and myself have talked how we can get 5 stops (and sometimes 6 stops) and sharp shots with our 7-2 f2.8 IS lenses. The point being that Canon's 3-stop claim is by no means "optimistic", handholdability is highly user-dependent, and IS is very useful. Put the 7-2f4 at 280mm f5.6 (1.4xTC wide open) and either 7-3IS at the same setting with shutter speeds around 1/60th (3 stops on a crop body), and I guarantee you almost every person shooting this setup under the same conditions would get a whole lot more keepers with the IS lenses.

Agreed.

I don't think it's that easy. I think someone could reasonably choose the 7-3IS lenses and have made the right choice for them. In closing, I generally agree with you that the L is a better lens than both; where I disagree is that the L is always the better fit for every person.

LightRules wrote in post #2308954
I haven't found that to ever be the case with any IS lens I've used. With the 7-3IS, I could consistently get 1/60th sharp shots (480mm FOV) and 4 stops and even 5 stops (1/15th) was not out of the question. IS is also very useful for certain types of panning captures. I know LeeJay (DPR) and myself have talked how we can get 5 stops (and sometimes 6 stops) and sharp shots with our 7-2 f2.8 IS lenses. The point being that Canon's 3-stop claim is by no means "optimistic", handholdability is highly user-dependent, and IS is very useful. Put the 7-2f4 at 280mm f5.6 (1.4xTC wide open) and either 7-3IS at the same setting with shutter speeds around 1/60th (3 stops on a crop body), and I guarantee you almost every person shooting this setup under the same conditions would get a whole lot more keepers with the IS lenses.

5 and 6 stops handheld?! That is most of the dynamic range of the camera. 5 stops is shooting at 1/60s instead of 1/2000s (1/120, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000, 1/2000). Sorry, I'm not buying that.

I have a number of IS lenses (24-105, 28-135 and the 300 f/4) and have used most of the other ones. 2-3 stops is about the best that you can reliably do depending on the lens and the IS generation.

I'm going to have to hold my ground on this one, for the application as listed, the OP, for the stated outdoor shots, is better off with the 70-200, IMO.

J.