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

[dphoenix21]

Hi Guys,

I am considering buying a good telephoto lens but I am quite confused between the two as they are priced almost the same. I have read a couple of reviews and both seems to be a good lens. I would just like to ask your opinion for those who have tried the two lenses.

Thanks!

 

[sixshot76]

Hi Guys,

I am considering buying a good telephoto lens but I am quite confused between the two as they are priced almost the same. I have read a couple of reviews and both seems to be a good lens. I would just like to ask your opinion for those who have tried the two lenses.

Thanks!

I think u can also consider 70-200mm F4 with IS.

 

[dphoenix21]

i have seen reviews on that also but quite more expensive than the non-IS. my budget is only up to the price of the two lenses in question. btw, i only have the Canon350D for the body.

 

[zxiank]

dphoenix21, I understand your dilemma cos I'm considering the same thing as well! but i'm edging towards 70-300mm. cos of the extra 100mm reach, IS and the filter size (58mm which is the same as my current filters).

only thing that attracts me for 70-200mm is that it is "L" and perhaps better QC so you won't get a bad copy.

Anyone got other opinions? Do help us in deciding between these two lens!

 

[oTaRu]

got alot of people said they dont like dust sucker lens such as Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM...
also got alot of people said L lens is the best choice but there are still some people said they dont like white lens as it's attract attention...
as for what I think... you should go down to the camera shop to test out both the lens... you can see which one do you prefer the most...

 

[Frijj]

Ask youself do you need the reach.

The 70-300 is a more compact and portable package and the IS really helps at focal lengths above 200mm.

The 70-300 is great for the zoo and travel, while the 70-200 f/4... has better IQ. If you don't pixel peep, the 70-300 is really good.

 

[fz30_user]

i was exactly in the same dilemma before. ended up with 70-300 IS and loving it. for the IQ, i think not much diff with 70-200mm (non-IS). better see for yourself at http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/70300s

the IS of this baby :thumbsup: after using it, i wished all my lenses have IS ;p

 

[dphoenix21]

hi fz30_user. thanks for the link you have provided. very much helpful with the side by side comparison. IQ is pretty much close between the two. the L only wins on the edge sharpness. do you have sample pictures of your 70-300 IS USM? hope you don't mind sharing. just want to see some more pictures taken using that lens.

 

[fz30_user]

hi fz30_user. thanks for the link you have provided. very much helpful with the side by side comparison. IQ is pretty much close between the two. the L only wins on the edge sharpness. do you have sample pictures of your 70-300 IS USM? hope you don't mind sharing. just want to see some more pictures taken using that lens.

no problem bro.. check your pm for the sample pix.

 

[zerartul]

Was actually in the same situation a week ago. In the end I got a 70-200 F4L USM (Second Hand with 10 months warranty left). I own the older 75-300 which i know is kinda lousy compared to the 70-300mm. But I find the 300mm reach not something I use often. Infact I only used it for 1 trip so far. So with that in mind I thought that I should get the L lens instead which is said to produce sharper and better contrast picture with faster AF and of course higher resale value if I want to switch to say a 70-200mm IS or other Telezoom in the future. In the end I guess its personal preference

Saying all this the thing I like best of the 70-200 is probably non extension in both zooming and focusing. Easier to keep in the bag lol.

 

[yehosaphat]

In terms of quality, I would prefer the L over the non L so 70-200mm is my choice. If you felt lacking in the focal length, crop it!

 

[currahee]

Was actually in the same situation a week ago. In the end I got a 70-200 F4L USM (Second Hand with 10 months warranty left). I own the older 75-300 which i know is kinda lousy compared to the 70-300mm. But I find the 300mm reach not something I use often. Infact I only used it for 1 trip so far. So with that in mind I thought that I should get the L lens instead which is said to produce sharper and better contrast picture with faster AF and of course higher resale value if I want to switch to say a 70-200mm IS or other Telezoom in the future. In the end I guess its personal preference

Saying all this the thing I like best of the 70-200 is probably non extension in both zooming and focusing. Easier to keep in the bag lol.

how have you manage with the non-IS 70-200mm F4L? am also looking into getting this lens.. the IS ver is way too exp..

 

[currahee]

btw how will in-camera stabilization help at focal length >200mm?

 

[zerartul]

Im currently using a 70-200mm f4l without IS. Usually if im usign it for normal shots, I just put it to f5.6 and take for the depth. F4 is pretty sharp but when the subject is close, just feel tat there isnt enough depth to use lol. Indoors I use it with flash with pretty high ISO while outdoors dont really have much problem.

IS helps when u take pics above 200mm. Considering that shutter should be optimized at 1/focal so at 200mm on a 1.6x crop u will need 1/320 shutter to maintain a decently sharp image. If you have IS, example a 70-200mm f4l IS with a pretty good IS system, you can gain additional 2 stops of light by requiring 3 stops less shutter which is about 1/40. With this you can actually use a lower ISO or higher aperture to gain my depth. Do note though IS only prevent camera shake so 1/40 is actually too slow to capture moving objects which will still result in blurring. As such IS is still best left to take slow or non moving objects.

As i just started doing more photography recently, im probably not as good as the many out there. Still learning the tricks to get good photo. Anyway 2 photos by a 70-200mm f4l non is lens.

Taken with flash indoors in one of my friends birthday at 80mm

Taken outdoor at 200mm

 

[iamacamera]

dphoenix21, I understand your dilemma cos I'm considering the same thing as well! but i'm edging towards 70-300mm. cos of the extra 100mm reach, IS and the filter size (58mm which is the same as my current filters).

only thing that attracts me for 70-200mm is that it is "L" and perhaps better QC so you won't get a bad copy.

Anyone got other opinions? Do help us in deciding between these two lens!

hello guys, i happened to use both lenses. i rented a 70-200 f2.8 IS USM(very expensive for me to buy hehehe) but i got the budget to buy the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM. attached are sample fotos.

this is me using 70-200 f2.8

and this is me using 70-300 f4-5.6.

as for my own opinion, we work on our budget...and and encourage you to be creative with your equipment. i hope i helped you decide. hehehe

 

[fz30_user]

no problem bro.. check your pm for the sample pix.

some of my sample shots at 300mm (it's weakest point they say)

handheld shot of the moon

 

[StrifeYun]

my 2 cents

was thinking of getting a tele zoom lens too (just got mine lst wkend hee 2ndhand)


70-300 i would consider ,
need the 100mm more zoom.
need the IS, for me how IS effects depens on the lens weight , length and focal range to compare how slow the shutter i can go.
the built to me looks solid and nice too , but i have never ctually used this lens hee

70-200 f4,
for the "L",
better sharpness and contrust.
do not need IS.
constant f4
better built, and the white colour haha
better resale value if ya ever upgrade.
lens des not extend when zoom.


but think main diff for me would be the IS an how sharp the 300mm would be.

Have fun with your christmas shopping for lens hehe, the little things that keep us going
btw i got the 70-200 f2.8 , time for more events haha shoot shoot shoot ...

 

[currahee]

nice way to narrow down the options

 

[zerartul]

You forget to add that 70-200L uses ring usm which focus extremely fast and accurate. One of the major difference if you use it to shoot fast moving things that IS doesnt help either.

 

[dphoenix21]

wow.... now i'm confused again.... for the 70-200 f/4 L, you would need a flash when using indoors while the IS on the 70-300 can be handheld at 3 stops slower...

but zerartul says IS won't help when shooting fast moving things... so for the 70-300 to be used to stop action, should need flash also... haiz...

any idea where i can rent these two lens for comparison?