Is it worth the $500 to upgrade to 70-200 f4/L USM

Currently shooting with a 1D MII and 75-300 lens.

Thanks

Yes yes yes! It really is a huuuuuge step up, but consider trying to scrounge for the IS version, or a prime in whatever length you prefer if you shoot indoors often and cannot use a flash.

shmoogy wrote in post #10356982
Yes yes yes! It really is a huuuuuge step up, but consider trying to scrounge for the IS version, or a prime in whatever length you prefer if you shoot indoors often and cannot use a flash.

Scrounging for it isn't really possible in this case considering the IS version is double what the non-IS one costs.

It would obliterate the 75-300 on the 1D2.

Theres a BIG difference, but I'd take the the 70-200mm. Whether the $500 is worth it is your choice.

The 70-200mm will have better build quality, IQ, f/4 throughout the focal lengths but is also shorter and heavier

Oh yes....Dont even think about it and press the buy button. On a 1D is will also make a decent portrait lens.

If you'd like IS, the 70-300 IS could be an option. The image quality may not be up to the 70-200s, but it will be far and away better than the 75-300.

Simple answer is yes.

Sigh, I was in this situation once. You will find, in short order, that you crave f/2.8, IS, or both. I bought and sold 2x 70-200 f/4s and a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Give it a try, but you'll be back for more

Over the 75-300? OF COURSE

great thanks guys.

The answer based on picture quality is yes. But, don't you need a 300mm or longer lens for shooting baseball?

The 70-200 f/4L will have blazing fast AF, especially on a 1D2! Maybe keep your 75-300 around for some extra reach (or buy a TC for the 70-200).

The 75-300 is possibly one of the worst lens optically that Canon makes. The 70-200 F4L is more than an upgrade. It will show you a whole new world of colors, contrast, and sharpness.

YES. Best $500 I've ever spent, other than the macro. It's worth the $500 anyways, but upgrading from the 75-300mm you might just faint the first time you look at your pics at 100% from the 70-200.

If you're shooting baseball, you might want to go for a 2.8 non-IS so that you'll have better subject isolation. Also you can put a 1.4 extender on it to get a 280mm f/4. Personally I dislike heavy f/2.8 telephoto zooms and actually just sold one to get the 70-200/4L. Love it so far! If I really need 200mm and faster than f/4 I'd rather have a prime like the 200/2.8 USM due to being a whole lot smaller and lighter than a 70-200/2.8 class zoom.