70-200 f/4L v. 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS

esc2476

Well, I got my bonus and am looking to spend part of it (of course) on some new glass for my 20D.

I read a lot of reviews for these two lenses and am still undecided, though the IS is pulling me towards the 70-300. The reach from 200-300 is not altogether necessary, but a nice extra.

I guess my question is really is whether the image quality of the L is enough to justify purchasing it over a lense with IS?

Thanks for helping out the n00bie

Red Bull

esc2476 wrote:

I guess my question is really is whether the image quality of the L is enough to justify purchasing it over a lense with IS?

Yes, yes it is.

I bought the f/4 L and haven't even looked back on the 70-300.

TristanP

Depends what you'll be using it for. I have the IS lens and like it. Physically, I think it's better for travel (smaller, not white, IS, more reach), but for ultimate IQ, the L beats it (but not by much from all accounts). My caveat - I haven't handled the L lens myself, so this is just arm-chair quarterbacking on my part. My suggestion is rent them or get to a shop that has both and try them out.

claudermilk

I've used two of the (now) four 70-200 models and their stellar reputations are deserved. Some of the best lenses I've laid my hands on & one is next up on my purchase list.

mercphoto

esc2476 wrote:

I guess my question is really is whether the image quality of the L is enough to justify purchasing it over a lense with IS?

Absolutely. The Canon 70-200/4L is known as one of their finest zooms. Their consumer grade 70-300 is just not going to hold a candle to it. I used to use their 75-300 lens. The 28-135 had noticably better image quality. My 70-200/2.8L is hands-down a better lens still over either. And the L primes are even better.

esc2476

This is a very difficult decision. Thanks for the feedback thus far everyone and I would appreciate any more anyone else has.

cmason

esc2476 wrote:

This is a very difficult decision. Thanks for the feedback thus far everyone and I would appreciate any more anyone else has.

Best advice to you: go try both out. On paper, they look very very close, so it is really hard to decide.

In person, it is much more illuminating. This is where you really learn what you want. My experience was that I was surprised at the build of the 70-300, and while the IS was very useful when looking thru the viewfinder, at higher shutterspeeds, it was not as useful as I had imagined.

In the end, I went with the 70-200 f4L. My reasons were 1) it was a substantial, very fast focusing lens: performance in hand. 2)it was internal focusing, and compact compared to the 70-300 extended. 3)it had heaft to it, felt worth the $$, the 70-300 was lightweight in comparison, 4) it was probably the only 'L" lens in the line that I had a hope of affording to buy vs other L lenses that are +$1000. 5) 200 was plenty and I could get to 300 with a 1.4x extended when I really needed it.

JimM

Depends how you want to shoot and where you want to be. If you want the sharpest, best images, the L is the way to go. If you are looking only by one more lens, cover a lot of difference and relatively sharp pics are okay for you, then you might want the other one.

I'd go for the 70-200 L. Or if you want really sharp, pick up a used 200mm f2.8 L (should be in the same price range), I love mine, absolutely amazing quality, color, sharpness. It would be nice to be able to zoom (sometimes) and some day I want to get the 70-200 f2.8 L IS, but that thing is a tank, so I think I'd still keep the limber 200 fixed also.

esc2476

Thanks for the help.

Well, here is a short story. I have been torn for some time now (for at least the last 6 months) between the two lenses. I knew one of these two lenses was going to be my next big purchase when I got my end year bonus at work.

Well, I got it and it was quite a bit more than I was expecting.

So, I went to B & H (I work/live in NYC) and got the best of both worlds: the 70-200L f/4 IS. It was quite a bit of change, but I figure with that lense, I get the best of both worlds and I won't be regretting my purchase in 6 months.

It is funny-this is the first L lense I have owned (along with the 17-40L I also purchased today....ugh, but :ivar ) and it cost more than my 20D body. I know I won't be buying a new lense for some time.

----

I have enjoyed photography for a long time-I was always the geek taking photos at family events, but it has only been a serious hobby of mine over the past few years. To get things started, I bought a G6, learned how to use manual controls and experiment and then moved to the 20D a year ago. Some shots were pretty awful, but the longer I shot, the better I became. I still have so much to learn, but this hobby-which I engage in constantly (whether it be shooting, reading, posting) is such a special joy to me. I am glad I stumbled upon this message board to share my passion with people who have a similar passion.

Thanks for listening and if there are any NYC meetups (I saw the thread, but there hasn't seemed to be any recently), I will be there!

monkeydeus

If anyone has both and uses them (e.g. one doesn't just sit in the bag waiting to be sold) - what are the different "use cases" for each? I am looking at the same decision, but am thinking I will get the 70-200 first, and maybe get the 70-300 later if I need the extra reach. Although I guess a TC would get you just as good too, wouldn't it. Except for no IS.

Red Bull

^There are no "different uses", since they are both telephoto zoom lenses. The only differences are that the 70-300 has an extra 100mm reach as well as IS. IS will only help with static objects that aren't moving.

The 70-200L has much better build quality, better optics, can keep a constant aperture throughout the entire zoom range, as well as staying the same length while zooming.

Thusie

Eric,

Big congrats on the two new lenses, you won't regret either. Have been reading lots of good things about the 70-200 F4 IS and the 17-40, is a very nice lens on the 20D.

The 70-200 f4 was the first lens I ever bought and rather ruined me for anything less, the IS version just kicks it up a notchclap

Only one small down side to all this L glass goodness, the desire for more

sirsloop

I'm not sure how many of you have used BOTH of these lenses! The 70-300IS lens is commonly referred as the "hidden L". Its got absolutely FANTASTIC optics, 3-stop IS, and compact lightweight body. There is no need to tell you about the 70-200/4L. I actually choose the 70-300IS the first time around, and I'm glad I did for three reasons.

1. Its got a little extra reach that I needed (although a 1.4x TC would fix that on the 70-200)
2. Its got IS, so I can use it as a panning lens - and I dont need to spend the extra $500 -that I could put into a 70-300IS- to get IS on the 70-200L
3. Its lightweight so my fiance can use it at horse shows while I whore my 70-200/2.8L


...that being said... either lens you choose is a winner! I decided I wanted IS over one stop of light. In the end I actually needed two stops for high action so I bought the bullet and got ANOTHER zooomer 70-200/2.8L. Lol... I'm suprised you were not sweating the 70-200/4L-IS vs 70-200/2.8L decision at the $1100 price range.

Red Bull wrote:

IS will only help with static objects that aren't moving.

unless you are panning!!! 70-300IS - 170mm, 1/100th, f/10, iso100, IS mode 2

sirsloop

Thusie wrote:

Have been reading lots of good things about the 70-200 F4 IS and the 17-40, is a very nice lens on the 20D.

the 17-40L is certianly another FANTASTIC lens. I had already purchased an ef35/2.0 that I fell in love with. Instead of getting that 17-40L i oped to stick with the 35 prime there and got a efs10-22 for UWA!

esc2476

This is fast becoming an addiction, but I love it. I am so happy to now have these lenses. Looks like I'll be bringing a lot of lunches to work now though

sirsloop

esc2476 wrote:

This is fast becoming an addiction, but I love it. I am so happy to now have these lenses. Looks like I'll be bringing a lot of lunches to work now though

keep working to turn your spare time into smugmug checks... you'll be just fine

esc2476

sirsloop wrote:

keep working to turn your spare time into smugmug checks... you'll be just fine

I am working on a separate pay web site (also on smugmug) over the weekend. We'll see how that works out. (It will be www.vividphotography.org)

claudermilk

esc2476 wrote:

This is fast becoming an addiction, but I love it. I am so happy to now have these lenses. Looks like I'll be bringing a lot of lunches to work now though

Welcome to the L-coholic's Club!

You will soon learn that the price of the body is just the cover charge. Lenses will far outweigh anything else in value. The good news is they last forever & retain their value if you choose to change things later.

esc2476

claudermilk wrote:

Welcome to the L-coholic's Club!

You will soon learn that the price of the body is just the cover charge. Lenses will far outweigh anything else in value. The good news is they last forever & retain their value if you choose to change things later.

That was one thing I notice. Whenever a used lense came up for sale here, on fred miranda or ebay - the value was not much off the retain price, which is nice and help me take the (huge) plung yesterday.

nikos

I

sirsloop wrote:

I'm not sure how many of you have used BOTH of these lenses! The 70-300IS lens is commonly referred as the "hidden L". Its got absolutely FANTASTIC optics, 3-stop IS, and compact lightweight body.

I agree!

One of the elements on the 70-300IS is actually an L rated glass. I had an EXTREMELY SHARP copy of this lens for about 8 months and got lots of keepers -- my only regret is selling it.

Nikos

esc2476

Thusie wrote:

Eric,

Big congrats on the two new lenses, you won't regret either. Have been reading lots of good things about the 70-200 F4 IS and the 17-40, is a very nice lens on the 20D.

The 70-200 f4 was the first lens I ever bought and rather ruined me for anything less, the IS version just kicks it up a notchclap

Only one small down side to all this L glass goodness, the desire for more

:ivar I am sure I will be finding this out when I shoot this wekeend.