Canon EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or L series 70-200

Hi Guys,

I'm thinking to buy lens but was stuck on shold I buy 70-300 or L series 70-200, is there much quality difference? I also heard that EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens is a hidden L series L lens.

Have you thought about the new 70-300L?
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …_70_300mm_f_4_5​_6l_is_usm

i had the 70-300 is usm and it's a nice lens but the 70-200 lenses are far superior.

way better build, weather sealed *is models*, faster focusing, better colours, and better iq.

Would y'all say there is a huge difference between the 70-200 f4 IS and just the regular 70-200 f4 non IS?

the is model has better iq, weather sealed, and IS.

so the non IS isn't weather sealed? I thought all L lenses were weather proof? Excuse my ignorance on this lol

The 70-300 IS USM is a pretty good lens but definitely not L quality. And no the 70-200 L non-IS is not weather sealed, one of the reasons why it is about $500 < the IS.

many will say the IQ of the L will blow away that of the 70-300IS...that said...check this out:
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/isvf4

even though i own the 70-300IS, if i had a friend that wanted to buy one, i'd probably tell them to save money and get the 55-250IS instead...there's not much of a noticeable difference between those two lenses in my opinion

I have both the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 70-300 (variable F) IS. I really like both. The 70-300 is small, light and longer, the 70-200 is noticeably heavier but quite a bit sharper. I'm frankly having a tough time selling the 70-300, because it's so light, longer, etc. and still takes great pics. I joke that if I can ever manage to sell it, I'll have to make up adoption papers and "approve the sale". It was my "baby" for about a year.

I've used the 70-200 f/4 non-IS, and while it's nearly as sharp as the image stabilized version, because of the lack of IS, I wouldn't choose it over the 70-300. It's fantastic in bright light, but a 200mm lens really needs IS if you want to shoot in lower light, even on a cloudy day.

Someone mentioned getting the 55-250 over the 70-300. The 70-300 has far better build quality. The IS on the 70-300 is rated higher, even though it's older. When you realize that a lens with IS is typically far more expensive than the same lens without IS, you realize that the 55-250 couldn't have the claimed 4 stop IS for its price (and test shows it only has about 2 stops). I would definitely not choose the 55-250 over the 70-300...in fact I had an opportunity and didn't make that choice.

If you have the money for the 70-200 f/4 IS get it, you'll love it. Otherwise the 70-300 is great. All of these photos were taken with my 70-300: http://www.flickr.com …0/sets/72157624​197594174/. I did a small amt of contrast adjustment and sharpening. Unfortunately I don't have a similar photo set with the 70-200.

I wouldn't even THINK of the 70-300 IS. The Tamron 70-300 VC USD is a far better lens for the money.

As for the L...well, I'm completely torn on that. I'm in the same boat as you right now, trying to figure out whether it's worth twice the money...

his should give you a very good idea
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I have used both. If you are on a budget, the 70-300 is not bad at all. Infact, in good light, I found it to be a fine lens.

I own both, the 70-300 is excellent from 70 to 220mm (comparable image quality to my 70-200L), from 220 to 300 the image quality is pretty soft. The L focuses faster.

I had a 70-300, and I thought it was good, then I got a 70-200 f4. I'm really please I did it, also I fitted a x1.4 converter. This then gives 280mm, but its with better optics.

CameraAddict wrote in post #11729534
Someone mentioned getting the 55-250 over the 70-300. The 70-300 has far better build quality. The IS on the 70-300 is rated higher, even though it's older. When you realize that a lens with IS is typically far more expensive than the same lens without IS, you realize that the 55-250 couldn't have the claimed 4 stop IS for its price (and test shows it only has about 2 stops). I would definitely not choose the 55-250 over the 70-300...in fact I had an opportunity and didn't make that choice.

I owned both the 55-250 and the 70-300 at the same time for a while, and in the end chose to sell the 70-300 and keep the 55-250. In terms of IQ (very good) and focusing speed (fairly slow), there was virtually no difference between the two lenses, and I actually preferred the IS system on the 55-250; I found it to be much more effective. In addition, I preferred the range and smaller size of the 55-250 (oddly, the extra 15 mm at the bottom end turned out to be more useful than the extra 50 mm at the top end). Add to that the considerable difference in price - the 70-300 was more than twice the price of the 55-250 but IMHO was nowhere near being twice the lens, if indeed it was better at all - and the decision was fairly easy. When I look back at my images from the time I had the two lenses, I can't tell which was taken with which lens. I've never regretted my decision and still love my 55-250, which has become my vacation/hiking lens.

Both the 70-300 and the 55-250 are good lenses, but based on my personal experience I don't think the 70-300 is worth the extra cost. If I had to choose between the two today, I wouldn't hesitate to buy the 55-250.

As for the 70-200 f4 IS, I agree with all the other comments to the effect that it's an absolutely stellar lens in every respect. I'm still blown away by the IQ every time I put it on my camera.

CameraAddict wrote in post #11729534
...Someone mentioned getting the 55-250 over the 70-300. The 70-300 has far better build quality. The IS on the 70-300 is rated higher, even though it's older. When you realize that a lens with IS is typically far more expensive than the same lens without IS, you realize that the 55-250 couldn't have the claimed 4 stop IS for its price (and test shows it only has about 2 stops). I would definitely not choose the 55-250 over the 70-300...in fact I had an opportunity and didn't make that choice...

I don't think I'd go so far as saying far superior. The only real differences are the 70-300 has a metal mount and the micro USM, which in reality is only slightly faster because it isn't ring USM. I'm not saying that the 70-300 isn't a good lens but I don't think it's worth twice as much as the 55-250. If you check out the 55-250 pic thread you'll see that it takes some great pics. I was trying to decide between the 2 also and went with the 55-250 and I'm putting the extra $200 towards a 70-300L or 100-400L in the future.