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

[foodpoison]

Hello all

Just a little background - I'm going on the trip of a lifetime next summer:

Flying out to New York - 1 night, then flying to Las Vegas and hiring a Dodge Charger, staying in LV for 4 nights
Day at Hoover Dam/Lake Mead
3 nights at the Grand Canyon, including a 45 minute helicopter tour
One night in the Mojave National Preserve
3 nights in Los Angeles
Driving up the west coast towards San Francisco, overnight stop on the way
3 nights in San Francisco (visit to the redwoods in the Muir woods, too)
Night in Yosemite National Park
Night in Sequoia National Park
Night in Death valley
Night in Las Vegas
Flight back to New York, night in New York, Home

So, being as this is a once in a lifetime trip, I'll be taking my camera, and being as I currently only have a 17-40 and a 50 prime, I'll be buying a telephoto lens.

Now, I'm quite happy with the range 70-200, but obviously that added 100mm of the 70-300 would be nice.

I will rarely be using it for low light stuff, and when I do, a tripod will be involved. IS is a necessity as my low shutter speed technique is dreadful, so if I were to buy the 70-200 f/4, it would be the IS version. I'm not that fussed about AF speed, and the AF on the 5D is pretty bad anyway. The size of either lens is not an issue. I don't care that the maximum aperture at 300mm is f/5.6.

My only question is this:
Is the image quality of the 70-200 worthy of the nearly triple price increase in comparison to the 70-300?

If I'm lucky I can get a used 70-200 f/4 IS for around £650, in comparison to around £270 for the 70-300 IS.

 

[CSB]

I'd get the 70-300 and put the difference towards spending money for your holiday. I've not used the 70-200 and I'm sure its sharper than the 70-300 but I dont think its worth the extra £400. I've used the 70-300 IS for quite a lot of pictures and I find it perfectly acceptable, especially outdoors.

I'd say you have enough time to get the 70-300 try it out and move it on to buy a 70-200 if you are not satisfied before next summer anyway.

 

[arad85]

I did most of those this year. You're in for a fantastic trip

Of the 799 photos I took, they broke down like this:

Sigma 12-24: 32
17-40L : 161
24-105L: 501
50: 10 (star trails in death valley)
70-200: 51 (most of those were at arches national park where I was too unfit to hike to close to the delicate arch)
70-200+1.4TC: 13
100mm macro: 32

If I were you, I'd be looking at something to use as a general purpose walkabout lens instead of a 70-200...

Another tip, book very early if you're staying in any national park. Particularly Grand Canyon. And Yosemite. And Death Valley. One park you haven't mentioned that I would recommend going to (not too far from Grand Canyon) is The National Monument. If I'd checked early enough I would have stayed at the only hotel at The National Monument. Totally, totally stunning place....

Oh.. as to your question, yes the 70-200L is worth the money, but summer around that area is darned bright so you can get high shutter speeds. Looking at my pictures on the 70-200 I was reaching 1/250th at f7.1 at ISO 100. Lots of room to play with given the thing is sharp wide open....

 

[arad85]

PS. Trip Advisor is a great way to find decent hotels. Apart from the national parks, we found all our hotels from trip advisor and weren't disappointed with any of them.

 

[foodpoison]

I'd get the 70-300 and put the difference towards spending money for your holiday. I've not used the 70-200 and I'm sure its sharper than the 70-300 but I dont think its worth the extra £400. I've used the 70-300 IS for quite a lot of pictures and I find it perfectly acceptable, especially outdoors.

I'd say you have enough time to get the 70-300 try it out and move it on to buy a 70-200 if you are not satisfied before next summer anyway.

That's what I was thinking, as 95% of the photos I take will be outdoors in the baking American West Coast, and I don't anticipate much rain haha. Maybe the odd summer storm.

Getting the 70-300 and moving it on if I don't like it is a fantastic idea. I'll try and see if I can get it as a part-present from parents at Christmas

I did most of those this year. You're in for a fantastic trip

Of the 799 photos I took, they broke down like this:

Sigma 12-24: 32
17-40L : 161
24-105L: 501
50: 10 (star trails in death valley)
70-200: 51 (most of those were at arches national park where I was too unfit to hike to close to the delicate arch)
70-200+1.4TC: 13
100mm macro: 32

If I were you, I'd be looking at something to use as a general purpose walkabout lens instead of a 70-200...

I would quite like a 24-105mm IS but I'd rather have a larger focal range covered than have overlapping lenses. I use the 17-40 a lot, especially when I went to the Lake District and I anticipate it will be a similar situation when I get to America, but I would like the telephoto range covered as well.

I don't mind changing lenses. I'll just be careful not to get any horrible red dust on the sensor (my camera needs a good clean but I think I'll save it for before I go away so it's nice and fresh )

Another tip, book very early if you're staying in any national park. Particularly Grand Canyon. And Yosemite. And Death Valley. One park you haven't mentioned that I would recommend going to (not too far from Grand Canyon) is The National Monument. If I'd checked early enough I would have stayed at the only hotel at The National Monument. Totally, totally stunning place....

Oh.. as to your question, yes the 70-200L is worth the money, but summer around that area is darned bright so you can get high shutter speeds. Looking at my pictures on the 70-200 I was reaching 1/250th at f7.1 at ISO 100. Lots of room to play with given the thing is sharp wide open....

My parents booked the whole thing using airmiles, so the flights are booked. We'll be booking hotels once we have a better understanding of the schedule of our trip, which I anticipate to be before Christmas, so hopefully hotels will be booked around 7/8 months before our holiday.

PS. Trip Advisor is a great way to find decent hotels. Apart from the national parks, we found all our hotels from trip advisor and weren't disappointed with any of them.

Thanks for the tip, I'll let my parents know

If anyone has any recommendations for reasonably priced (we're not a family who give a toss about luxury, so long as it's clean, well located and well equipped) hotels at any of the destinations I've named, I'd really appreciate them

 

[Starastin]

but summer around that area is darned bright so you can get high shutter speeds. Looking at my pictures on the 70-200 I was reaching 1/250th at f7.1 at ISO 100

I'm going to florida in about 10 days . could you comment the light in there this time of year ? when I was in north-west many moons ago I was using compact and couldn't care about light so much

I'll be shooting film iso800 for the jungle stuff and hoping to achieve at least f8 and 1/180 .

o/t sorry for a hijack

p.s. - west coast is absolutely stunning !!! well - most of the USA is . every place has it's own quirk, but then again - the place is huge.

 

[arad85]

My parents booked the whole thing using airmiles, so the flights are booked. We'll be booking hotels once we have a better understanding of the schedule of our trip, which I anticipate to be before Christmas, so hopefully hotels will be booked around 7/8 months before our holiday.

I booked some of the rooms around January this year for an August trip. I was quite limited on choice for Yosemite and Grand Canyon and a couple of weeks after I booked, there was nothing at the Grand Canyon. I was lucky with Death Valley - there are only 2 hotels there open during summer. The rest are a drive outside. You definitely want to stay inside DV - such an amazing yet desolate place. If you're staying there on a clear night - and the moon is not up, the starts are truly, truly awe inspiring (we went half a mile from where we were staying to get the best view).

I guess what I'm saying is work your trip around the availability of hotels in the key places you want to stay.

BTW, unless you are proposing to hike to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, 2 nights is probably plenty IMHO.

 

[arad85]

I'm going to florida in about 10 days . could you comment the light in there this time of year ? when I was in north-west many moons ago I was using compact and couldn't care about light so much

There will be some! I have no idea what it will be like at this time of year - sorry

I've been to the 'States 20+ times on business but this was the first time I've been back for a holiday. We fell in love with the place (well, the bits that were outside cities).

 

[arad85]

My parents booked the whole thing using airmiles, so the flights are booked. We'll be booking hotels once we have a better understanding of the schedule of our trip, which I anticipate to be before Christmas, so hopefully hotels will be booked around 7/8 months before our holiday.

PS2: apart from the park hotels, the one in Las Vegas when we arrived and the one in San Fran when we left which were all pre-booked, we booked all the hotels online whilst we were there. Most places have wifi and it's easy to book online. The only "problem" was around The National Monument. Very few hotels and those that were there were fully booked. We ended up going to Moab (about 150 miles further on!) which made for a long day in the car, but had probably the most relaxing time there. And Arches NP is stunning!!

 

[LaurenceGough]

I'd go for the 70-200mm for the sharpness and constant aperture which I love.

 

[foodpoison]

I'm going to florida in about 10 days . could you comment the light in there this time of year ? when I was in north-west many moons ago I was using compact and couldn't care about light so much

I'll be shooting film iso800 for the jungle stuff and hoping to achieve at least f8 and 1/180 .

o/t sorry for a hijack

p.s. - west coast is absolutely stunning !!! well - most of the USA is . every place has it's own quirk, but then again - the place is huge.

I went to Florida in October a few years back (quite a few ) and it was sunny every day, apart from the few days that a hurricane passed by. That was crazy. ISO800 will be fine, but it depends on what focal length you're shooting. 1/180 of a second is unnecessary really unless you're shooting 100mm or over.

I booked some of the rooms around January this year for an August trip. I was quite limited on choice for Yosemite and Grand Canyon and a couple of weeks after I booked, there was nothing at the Grand Canyon. I was lucky with Death Valley - there are only 2 hotels there open during summer. The rest are a drive outside. You definitely want to stay inside DV - such an amazing yet desolate place. If you're staying there on a clear night - and the moon is not up, the starts are truly, truly awe inspiring (we went half a mile from where we were staying to get the best view).

I guess what I'm saying is work your trip around the availability of hotels in the key places you want to stay.

BTW, unless you are proposing to hike to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, 2 nights is probably plenty IMHO.

I'm sure it will be fine haha. We'll get the hotels booked sharpish

I'm really looking forward to the landscapes. I'm a landscape photographer at heart. Drove my parents nuts in the Lake District; "Stop, stop!" I'd shout, I'd jump out the car, grab my bag and run off somewhere to take a photo. They're going to love me in America haha.

PS2: apart from the park hotels, the one in Las Vegas when we arrived and the one in San Fran when we left which were all pre-booked, we booked all the hotels online whilst we were there. Most places have wifi and it's easy to book online. The only "problem" was around The National Monument. Very few hotels and those that were there were fully booked. We ended up going to Moab (about 150 miles further on!) which made for a long day in the car, but had probably the most relaxing time there. And Arches NP is stunning!!

We weren't planning on booking any hotels for LA, LV or SF. We anticipated that the more remote places would have to be prior booked, whereas the big cities would probably have plenty of rooms available.

I'd go for the 70-200mm for the sharpness and constant aperture which I love.

Yeah, you'd go for it, but I've heard the 70-300 is pretty much as sharp as the 70-200L between 70 and 200. I would like the constant f/4, but in all honesty I don't think I could justify the extra £400 odd if the image quality is similar...

 

[foodpoison]

Just a quote from Ken Rockwell's website:

In actual use I see no difference between this Canon 70-300mm IS and my brand-new $1,000 Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS. On test charts the difference is dramatic wide open and in the corners, but not in the middle of the image at normal apertures where we actually use these lenses.

Sharpness is great for real photograpy. The first time I saw its images on my 30" monitor I was knocked over, since I wasn't expectiing much and the images are excellent.

So long as you stop down a stop or two, your technique will be your biggest barrier to sharp photos.

According to Ken Rockwell, the only bad thing about the lens is build quality, which is to be expected from a lot of non-L lenses.

Apart from that, most of it is on par with the 70-200 lenses. In the 'lab' (i.e. doing proper tests on grids to critically test sharpness) the lens isn't as sharp as the 70-200 f/4 IS, but in 'real use' (i.e. taking photos of things) the differences are barely noticeable.

 

[BacktotheFuji]

Did a similar trip earlier in the year. I used mostly:

50/1.4 (Vegas, New York at night)
35-70/3.4 (Yosemite, Vegas, New York in the day)
14/2.8 (New York at night)
100-300 (Bay area for seals, although I'd recommend 400mm+ for that job)

Other than for the seals, I barely used the longer lens.

 

[Starastin]

I went to Florida in October a few years back (quite a few ) and it was sunny every day, apart from the few days that a hurricane passed by. That was crazy. ISO800 will be fine, but it depends on what focal length you're shooting. 1/180 of a second is unnecessary really unless you're shooting 100mm or over.

yeah it's gonna be like - been there , seen that thing with feathers, which will probably be hiding under a tree or something. just went for a walk in a forest testing all setup out on squirrels and think that I'll be fine. normally I don't shoot above 50mm .

I just hope I won't be stuck with landscapy animal shots with my mere 80-200mm