Canon 70-200 f/4L vs Canon 70-300 IS

Rhuarc

I'm trying to figure out what my first telephoto zoom should be. Right now I'm looking at these two.

Canon 70-200 USM f/4L
Canon 70-300 IS

I've read fantastic things about the 70-200, but for close to the same price, with more reach and IS should I consider the 70-300?

It would be awesome to have my first L glass, but as cool as it would be I'm thinking I might get more use out of the added features on the regular 70-300.

Thanks!!

Oh, and if anyone has suggestions of other similar range/similar priced lenses by other manufacturers please let me know! I'm looking in the $500 range right now.

I suppose it would also behoove me to push off the purchase for awhile and look at the 70-200 f/4 IS, This would give me the IS to do lower light stuff. So then the only thing the 300 would have is the extra reach. Is the IS worth the extra 400 over the non IS version? And then when I start looking at that price range the 2.8 Non-IS is only $200 more than the 4.0 IS. So if I'm going to spend that much is it worh it to jump up to the 2.8 Non-IS?

BenA2

I chose the 70-200 f/4L
I went through the same debate, went with the 70-200, and haven't regretted it for a second. It was the lens that began my L addiction.

In my case, I was looking for a quality landscape telephoto that I would be shooting with on a tripod. I wasn't interested in hand-held, low-light use. In good light, it has since also proven useful as a nice close-up (not true macro) hand-held lens with excellent bokeh. I also am not using it to shoot wildlife.

Had I gone with the 70-300 IS, I could use if for more applications, but I don't think I would have been as satisfied with the image quality as I am with the 70-200. You are just not going to be dissapointed with its quality.

sirsloop

I started out shooting with the 70-300IS, then bought a 70-200/2.8L. While I love the 70-300IS dearly...if I did it again I probably would have started out with a 70-200/4 plus a 1.4x TC. The 70-200/4L is sharper wide open, better built, faster focus, doesnt expand and rotate on foxus/zoom, better value retention. I also think my 70-200/2.8L produces better color and bokeh...its likely that the 70-200/4 is the same way. These L lenses just have a "magic factor". For an every day lens, the 70-300IS isnt bad at all. In fact, its downright excellent at f/8 and is nice w/ IS at the long end...but the variable aperture stinks and its kinda soft wide open. The 70-300IS has a tendancy to track for focus a lot more than my 70-200/2.8L...likely due to the smaller aperture.

nikos

Rhuarc wrote:

I'm trying to figure out what my first telephoto zoom should be. Right now I'm looking at these two.

Canon 70-200 USM f/4L
Canon 70-300 IS

I've read fantastic things about the 70-200, but for close to the same price, with more reach and IS should I consider the 70-300?

It would be awesome to have my first L glass, but as cool as it would be I'm thinking I might get more use out of the added features on the regular 70-300.

Thanks!!

Oh, and if anyone has suggestions of other similar range/similar priced lenses by other manufacturers please let me know! I'm looking in the $500 range right now.

I suppose it would also behoove me to push off the purchase for awhile and look at the 70-200 f/4 IS, This would give me the IS to do lower light stuff. So then the only thing the 300 would have is the extra reach. Is the IS worth the extra 400 over the non IS version? And then when I start looking at that price range the 2.8 Non-IS is only $200 more than the 4.0 IS. So if I'm going to spend that much is it worh it to jump up to the 2.8 Non-IS?

If you're looking at investing about $500.00, then just keep your selection to the first two lenses you mention. Canon lenses are great at holding their value and if you have the lens for a year and it is still in great condition, you can still get most of your money back when you sell it. This is especially true for L lenses.

Let's compare the 2 lenses

[highlight]70-300 IS[/highlight]
Positive

• Price
• Extra reach
• Newer version of IS
• One of the elements is L glass
• VERY SHARP*
• Great saturation & contrast.

Negative

• Build quality not nearly as good as the 70-200 f4
• Telescoping zoom
• Barrel creep if you're pointing the lens very high or low
• Front barrel spins freely -- inconvenient for polarizer
• Known issue for soft focus in portrait orientation
• Hood is extra

[highlight]70-200 f4[/highlight]
Positive

• Very fast auto focus
• Very sharp
• Better build
• No extending barrel
• Comes with hood
• Retains its value very well

Negative

• Less reach
• Longer than the 70-300 (not extended)
• No IS
• Mounting ring is extra

You have to decide which lens is better suited for you shooting applications. The 70-200 f4 is more appealing for a number of reasons but if you definitely need that extra reach along with IS, then you should really consider the 70-300.

HTH,
Nikos

sirsloop

mounting ring isnt even an option with the 70-300IS... so actually the fact that you can get a mounting ring with the L lens is a bonus.

The soft focus thing is on older 70-300IS lenses, and can be repaired for free by Canon. I guess i'm lucky but I work like less than a mile from their jamesburg, NJ office. I stopped in on a weekday morning and picked it up at lunch time all fixed - and tightened so the zoom doesnt creep

Put it this way... if you think that you're going to be doing a lot of long zoom shooting around or under 1/250th of a second then the 70-300IS is probably something for you. The panning feature (IS mode 2) is really the only reason I still have the lens. Its not really much lighter than the 70-200L so thats really not a factor either, which is important if you cannot lift a heavier lens for a long time. If I didnt need a zoomer for both myself and my fiancee I would have already sold both my zoomer lenses and purchased the 70-200/2.8L IS.