EF 70-200 F/4 L or Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS

rgrebby said:
They seem around the same price according to http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406

Im guessing that the L glass is a lot better but is 200 enough for wildlife?

Or should I get what I can afford and buy the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS.

I have a 400D
Click to expand...


Actually the 'L' glass is not a lot better. In fact I'd go as far as to say that the 70-300 is every bit as good as the 70-200 optically (I have both). Where the 70-300 does fall down is in the build quality, a non ring USM focusing (so no FTM) and by the fact that the front element rotates during focusing so using a polariser is difficult. BUT, the 70-300mm does have IS making the lens very useable hand held all the way up to 300. Cost wise from what I see the L is about £100 more expensive.

I took this the other day with the 70-300mm on a 400D

IMG_20080619_2482.jpg
 
..ahem... cough... cough..

That's what I thought until I tried the 70-200L. There is no comparison, once you learn how to use it (which takes a little time). I had a 75-300 IS. It went on fleabay about a week after I got the 70-200.

The f4 version is a bit sharper than the f2.8 which I have, but the sharpness, tonal quality, depth of colour of the images. you have to try for yourself.


However if you need 300mm then adding a 1.4tc onto a 200 doesnt do it justice, unless its stopped down. You can get good shots, at least as good as the 70-300, but you'll be disappointed when you compare them to the vanilla 70-200 images.

There's a reason why lots of us forsake the extra 100mm and live with a 70-200, and it's not hard to live with either.
 
oldgit said:
..ahem... cough... cough..

That's what I thought until I tried the 70-200L. There is no comparison, once you learn how to use it (which takes a little time). I had a 75-300 IS. It went on fleabay about a week after I got the 70-200......................
Click to expand...


OG, how did the 75-300 get in on the act? I thought we were comparing the 70-300 to a 70-200. The 75-300mm is generally considered to be a poor lens compared against anything.



(edit for typo)
 
rgrebby,

just seen your website, and you're taking some good interesting photos. I've got the 70-300 f4-5.6 USM IS lens after reading the same review as above as well as others. You've got the extra 100mm and IS.

I use mine for sports and have some shots from Le Mans last week here:

http://www.walles.co.uk/gallery/lemans

90% of the shots (except the night time shots taken with sigma 24-70 f2.8) are with the 70-300 lens. I realise it's a different subject to what you do. Perhaps some others would care to comment on the shots, but I think they come out pretty nice. All the shots are out the camera (Canon 40d) although some have been cropped. Only 5/6 of them were modified adjusting the colour curve to make them darker as they were a tad underexposed, that's all.

Chris
 
I was faced with the same decision last September, and after much thinking I ended up going with the 70-300IS as I felt I really needed the extra reach and as a consequence I would also need IS which a 70-200 f4 + 1.4x TC wouldnt offer me.

I've been very pleased with the results so far :)
 
70-200 is an amazing lens, used mine again for the first time in a while last week and had forgotten just how much of a joy it is to use.
 
check your PMs rgrebby.

Pete
 
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS
Click to expand...

for the (new) price of the above you could buy a (used) 300mm f4 L on flea bay

no questions about quality here - i brought mine for ~£300 - no IS - so what? - learn to hold the camera / lens or use bean bag /monopod /tripod take great shots and smile at the results....

400mm f5.6? L hard to find a cheap one - people keep them as they do the job - 300 + 1.4x works ok but not as good as 400mm f5.6 but a cheaper route
 
oldgit said:
..ahem... cough... cough..
That's what I thought until I tried the 70-200L. There is no comparison, once you learn how to use it (which takes a little time). There's a reason why lots of us forsake the extra 100mm and live with a 70-200, and it's not hard to live with either.
Click to expand...

I concur 100%
The 70-300 IS was ( is) a capable enough lens
( It can be a bit soft on the far end ( at least mine was)
But I "swapped" mine for a 70-200 and never looked back.
Though as Mr git say's "they do take a little getting used to, I found its almost like a running in period, for some reason....
 
I use the 70-300 IS for motorsport and have for quite some time now. At the long end it does tail off a bit, but nothing like I have seen other stuff do.

I usually try to stick below about 250mm, but don't really worry if I end up at 300mm.

This might sound like sacriledge, but I also have a 300 F4 L and quite often the 70-300 actually outperforms the 300 in terms of focus speed and accuracy - and I spend 99% of my photography time shooting cars and bikes at race circuits.

The 70-300 is a far better lens than most would have you believe. I thought about replacing it with a 70-200 but whilst I accept there would be a difference, I cannot justify the expense for a little improvement (and I use a friends 70-200 F2.8 from time to time, so I know what I am talking about).

Only downsides are the rotating front element when you zoom (makes CPL's a problem) and that the Canon 1.4x TC won't really work with it properly. If you need those two things, get the 70-200 F4 or F2.8 L. And of course its not constant aperture, again, not a problem for me.

Other than that ~300 quid gets you a very capable lens with a good focal length range.
 
70-200 has better IQ but not by much. The 70-300 has very good IQ and it is 100mm longer

some people are bothered by having white lenses and don't want to draw attention to themselves as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top