Has anyone ever traded the 70-300 for the 70-200 F4 IS and regretted it?

I did search the forum for all the 70-300 vs 70-200 threads, and many of them were using the NON IS 70-200 as comparison. And in many of the threads, I noticed that many advocates of the 70-300 now have a 70-200 in the gear lists.

Here is the deal, like everyone else, I fear I will miss the extra reach in a 70-200. Currently, I am shooting landscapes (many are distant) and zoo stuff, and looking to plunge more into astrophotography. I live in a sunny place, for the most part (aperture considerations). I don't like the look of white lenses, but I am liking the look of the differences in IQ I have seen between the two lenses. They both have IS, which I need (shaky chick I am), and the faster AF of the 70-200 appeals to me. If I sold my 70-300, that would fund a chunk of the 70-200 purchase.

Which leads me to my question (finally :rolleyes: How many of you owned a 70-300, "upgraded" to the 70-200 F4 IS, and missed (or even went back to) the 70-300?

The only thing to miss is the size of the 70-300. I was hooked on the 70-2 family once I mounted it and took my first shot. The auto-focus is blazingly fast and the IQ is awesome. Also, I do not miss the reach of the 70-300 because the 70-2 takes a 1.4 extender quite well. The only time that I'd recommend the 70-300 would be in a straight comparison with the 70-200 f/4 NON-IS where you needed the IS. Both produce very nice IQ, but the AF and full time manual focusing got me addicted to the L

Tumbl3w33ds wrote in post #6711688
I did search the forum for all the 70-300 vs 70-200 threads, and many of them were using the NON IS 70-200 as comparison. And in many of the threads, I noticed that many advocates of the 70-300 now have a 70-200 in the gear lists.

Here is the deal, like everyone else, I fear I will miss the extra reach in a 70-200. Currently, I am shooting landscapes (many are distant) and zoo stuff, and looking to plunge more into astrophotography. I live in a sunny place, for the most part (aperture considerations). I don't like the look of white lenses, but I am liking the look of the differences in IQ I have seen between the two lenses. They both have IS, which I need (shaky chick I am), and the faster AF of the 70-200 appeals to me. If I sold my 70-300, that would fund a chunk of the 70-200 purchase.

Which leads me to my question (finally :rolleyes: How many of you owned a 70-300, "upgraded" to the 70-200 F4 IS, and missed (or even went back to) the 70-300?

Girl, the IQ of my 70-200 f/4L IS USM is just THAT good. I have a 75-300mm III (I know not the same as the 70-300 IS) and a 70-210mm f/4. First off, none of the 70-300 & 75-300 Zooms (Including the 70-300 DO) are really all that good at 300mm in the first place. Between 200mm and 300mm on these lenses, the IQ suffers considerably. Depending on who you ask, the most reach you can get while still getting a usable image is about 230mm - 240mm. So you really aren't losing much anyways.

The 70-200mm f/4L IS USM is the sharpest zoom lens Canon makes (possibly the sharpest zoom of ANY manufacturer). Its so sharp even wide open @ f/4 that it makes me grin just thinking of it now. If you really need the reach, either of the Canon TC's will add reach (at the cost of speed of course) but will do so without affecting IQ, which is a true testament to how good the Canon TC's are. Many shooters use a TC 1.4x with the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM to get a 320mm f/5.6 that is seriously sharp and focuses still VERY fast. The ring USM of the 70-200 f/4L IS is lightning fast. Adding the TC 1.4x doesn't hinder the AF hunt time in any major way. The 2x TC's will make you hunt tho... f/8 is hard to focus fast with.

My 75-300 III will NEVER get used again. The 70-210 f/4 still has its uses (zooming shots, flashzoom shots - pushpulls are faster for zooming/flashzooming).

Something to consider about buying the lens now. MS Live Cashback on an eBay transaction with BuyNow and Paypal qualifies you for $200.00 in Cashback. Plus if you buy it from an authorized vendor, you get the benefit of the Canon Instant Rebate. Makes the price work out like this.
$1100.00 MSRP
- 75.00 Canon Instant Rebate
---------------
$1025.00 Price after Rebate (look for this BuyNow price on eBay)
- 200.00 MS Live Cashback you'll get 60 days later
---------------
$ 825.00 Final price
+ 25.00 (Fair shipping price)
---------------
$ 850.00 Price for a brand new USA Warranty EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM.

The Canon Instand Rebate is good till January 19th.
The MS Live Cashback is good (for now) Dunno how long Microsoft intends to lose money on this deal.

-Alan

-Alan

I have not touched my 70-300 since getting my 70-200. The quality is just sooo much better that I would rather crop in a bit. I didn't often go to 300mm anyway as I wasn't happy with the results at that length.

I have shot with both and the 70-200 IQ is awesome. Very much like my 70-200 f/4L non-IS. I want to try a TC 1.4x or 2x some time with it.

-Ed

I had the 70 300 IS and really liked it. I bought a 70-200 2.8 non IS and love it and can't think of any reason to go back.

The 70-200 2.8 non IS is so sharp and bright it stays on my Camera most days now.

I have both the 70-300 and a 70-200 in the 2.8 IS variety. I can tell you this, the 70-300 spends more time in the bag than the 70-200. The quality of the 70-200 is much better, yes, but the size and versatility of the 70-300 keeps it in my travel bag.

The comment above that pictures from the 70-300 are useless above 230mm is one I do not agree with. Maybe that person is far more critical of their pictures than I am. I have been happy with photos at 300mm, although the lens is a bit slow up there.

Jethro790 wrote in post #6712264
I have both the 70-300 and a 70-200 in the 2.8 IS variety. I can tell you this, the 70-300 spends more time in the bag than the 70-200. The quality of the 70-200 is much better, yes, but the size and versatility of the 70-300 keeps it in my travel bag.

The comment above that pictures from the 70-300 are useless above 230mm is one I do not agree with. Maybe that person is far more critical of their pictures than I am. I have been happy with photos at 300mm, although the lens is a bit slow up there.

I am quite critical of my photos. I will say this, if you are keeping the 70-300 for the extra reach and have the f/2.8L IS. You'd be better off just selling the 70-300 IS and buying both the TC 1.4x II and the TC 2x II with the money.

Here's why I say this.

a) if you mount the TC 1.4x II to your 70-200mm f/2.8L IS you'll get 320mm reach @ f/4. If you mount the TC 2x II to your 70-200 f/2.8L IS you'll get 400mm @ f/5.6. Both of these figures (not 100% on the f/5.6 it might actually get you f/6.3, someone else might confirm this for ya) are faster than the 70-300 IS is giving you, with a Sharper IQ and faster AF than your 70-300 is giving you now.

b) You could take up less room in your bag with BOTH of the TC's than you are taking with your 70-300mm IS now.

You might even walk away with $100 bux to spend on memory cards out of the deal.

I think its a no-brainer that way. Better IQ, faster aperatures, and even MORE reach (and mind you SHARP IQ Reach), and maybe, just maybe some money back too.

-Alan

I already have a cheap 2x TC which I use (and it works pretty well but not wonderfully) with my 70-200 f/4L IS. But f/8 which I'm getting with it is slowing down my AF. If I had the f/2.8L IS like you have... f/5.6 is well within the limits of the 40D's AF system.

400mm f/5.6 - ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!??! AWESOME!!!!!

I will be selling my 70-300 III to fund a Canon TC 1.4x II. I have ZERO need for that turd.

-Alan

This is really helpful yall, each and every post. I am THIS close to putting my 70-300 up for grabs in the Marketplace....

Hi Deb

just my 2 cents....I had the 70-300 IS lens for about 3 days and took loads of pics with it but never felt really good about the results, and at a cost of $650 which to me is a lot of money I felt I wasn't getting the 'bang' for my dollars...so I returned it and bought the 70-200 f/4 IS and I don't regret a single dollar that I spent on her...sharp as a tack!....and I also bought the 1.4 TC afterwords which when attached is definatley no slouch either

good luck
Jim

Tumbl3w33ds wrote in post #6712380
This is really helpful yall, each and every post. I am THIS close to putting my 70-300 up for grabs in the Marketplace....

The MS Live Cashback helps products sell too.

Put it up on eBay with a Buy It Now. And put in the listing how much the price will be after the buyer gets their Cashback.

So, say you list the lens for $549.00 with BuyItNow. You can say in the listing that after MS Live Cashback the lens will end up costing the buyer $411.75.

You get your full $549.00 (minus eBay and paypal fees), they get the CashBack in 60 days and end up paying $411.75 + shipping. Everybody wins.

Its the smart play Deb.

-Alan

nureality wrote in post #6712465
The MS Live Cashback helps products sell too.

Put it up on eBay with a Buy It Now. And put in the listing how much the price will be after the buyer gets their Cashback.

So, say you list the lens for $549.00 with BuyItNow. You can say in the listing that after MS Live Cashback the lens will end up costing the buyer $411.75.

You get your full $549.00 (minus eBay and paypal fees), they get the CashBack in 60 days and end up paying $411.75 + shipping. Everybody wins.

Its the smart play Deb.

-Alan

I agree, it is a great program, and a good marketing tool for sellers. However, I have had nothing but grief with ebay and camera gear, from being scammed out of over $400 as a buyer, and listing my XTi TWICE with no takers...and it cost me over $40 in the end If anyone wants my lens, and the Live cashback, I guess I'll put up a listing for them, but not without them paying the listing fees because its just too, too hard to keep losing money on scambay

I hear ya.

BTW: Say hello to Jack and Hurley for me.

nureality wrote in post #6712656
I hear ya.

BTW: Say hello to Jack and Hurley for me.

I will, as soon as I can tear myself away from Desmond, heh