EF 70-200mm f/4L USM vs EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

[Peter_Tee]

Hi,

Would anybody have any experience of the following two lenses: 1) EF 70-200mm f/4L USM 2) EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (the new one introduced this year)?

The price range is very similar, about S$1200-1300. The other one is L series lense but other one has longer zoom with image stabilizer.

What I'm most interested is the image quality. Is there big difference in the quality? Anyone has any experience?

Would you have any other remarks which are important when choosing between these two lenses? I'll use the lens with 20D.

Of course it would be nice to afford to buy f/2.8 version with IS but I believe if I have S$3000 I will spend $2000 to 24-105 f/4L and enjoy owning 2 lensen instead of only one

 

[DEADMETAL]

Personally I will go for the 70-300mm IS coz of the IS, though can't stop actions, the ability to use a slower shutter speed is a :thumbsup: Sharpness u juz have to stop down alittle. The 300mm is a :thumbsup: too. Don't worry about the resale as too many ppl are selling the 70-200mm, which makes the 70-200mm hard to sell too. Unless u think white is But might attract unwanted attraction.

 

[JediForce4ever]

Personally I will go for the 70-300mm IS coz of the IS, though can't stop actions, the ability to use a slower shutter speed is a :thumbsup: Sharpness u juz have to stop down alittle. The 300mm is a :thumbsup: too. Don't worry about the resale as too many ppl are selling the 70-200mm, which makes the 70-200mm hard to sell too. Unless u think white is But might attract unwanted attraction.

invest abt $600 more and get a 70-200mmf2.8L.

 

[jeremyftk]

Quite frankly, unless you're obsessed with L, the 70-300 is more than enough. Quite sharp but of course not up to the standard of the L lens.

However, I would personally recommend that you consider taking a look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO... It's quite a good lens and going for about 1.8k at my last check...

 

[JediForce4ever]

Quite frankly, unless you're obsessed with L, the 70-300 is more than enough. Quite sharp but of course not up to the standard of the L lens.

However, I would personally recommend that you consider taking a look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO... It's quite a good lens and going for about 1.8k at my last check...

my last check CP $1550 for the Sigma 70-200mmf2.8. TCW is S$1280
anyway, I second Jeremy's suggestion. You get f2.8 and sharpness at a lower price.

 

[MakotoMiki]

my last check CP $1550 for the Sigma 70-200mmf2.8. TCW is S$1280
anyway, I second Jeremy's suggestion. You get f2.8 and sharpness at a lower price.

correct. that's y i bought yr lens. wahaha

my last check CP $1350 for the Sigma 70-200mmf2.8 (W/O GST)

 

[JediForce4ever]

correct. that's y i bought yr lens. wahaha

my last check CP $1350 for the Sigma 70-200mmf2.8 (W/O GST)

enjoying huh?

 

[evershine]

I heard sigma 70-200 f2.8 focusing is slower than canon 70-200 f2.8L ?!?

Quite frankly, unless you're obsessed with L, the 70-300 is more than enough. Quite sharp but of course not up to the standard of the L lens.

However, I would personally recommend that you consider taking a look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO... It's quite a good lens and going for about 1.8k at my last check...

 

[MakotoMiki]

I heard sigma 70-200 f2.8 focusing is slower than canon 70-200 f2.8L ?!?

hmm..... correct. but better than nikon.

 

[MakotoMiki]

enjoying huh?

just try 200mm f2.8

 

[JediForce4ever]

hmm..... correct. but better than nikon.

ya...there is still no AF motor in the world that can beat the speed of the USM:thumbsup:

 

[waiyean]

Just got my EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, and my impression of it so far is very good. Not much significant difference in optics between this lens and the F/4 L. What won me over to this lens is the IS (which is wonderful), the extra range, slightly lighter, and it's black.

 

[kiwi2]

Hmm...Strange... Everytime someone starts a new forum of a similar topic, opinions can sway abruptly 180 degrees. I remember some time back, I read this 70-200mm L vs 70-300mm IS debate and the L won hands down.

In this discussion, seems like there's a pretty strong inclination towards the 70-300 IS. So it's obvious photography is about what u want and how much u can afford. Out of 20, 10 can say go for the L, another 10 say IS.

Someone here said the 300mm is :thumbsup: but u can read other forums how the general conclusion is that the 300mm end is soft. Unless it was meant that the IS has a longer focal length that the L hasn't got.

Ok my opinion: If u are talking about resolution, contrast and sharpness, the L wins the IS without doubt.

Built and focusing speed, L wins again.

If u need to shoot 200-300mm often, and some low light, the IS comes in handy.

Ultimately, u decide... Willing to trade off some performance for focal length and hand holdability, then go for IS. U want image quality as the top priority, go for the L.

If u shoot digital and especially RAW, u can play with post processing... So usually, u really can't tell whether an image is from an L or a cheaper lens. Good images can be created with the IS over the L if at the end of the day, the skill of the photog is pushed hard enuff.

Neither lens is bad, just your needs to be considered...

 

[spartacus.ret]

Hmm...Strange... Everytime someone starts a new forum of a similar topic, opinions can sway abruptly 180 degrees. I remember some time back, I read this 70-200mm L vs 70-300mm IS debate and the L won hands down.

In this discussion, seems like there's a pretty strong inclination towards the 70-300 IS. So it's obvious photography is about what u want and how much u can afford. Out of 20, 10 can say go for the L, another 10 say IS.

Someone here said the 300mm is :thumbsup: but u can read other forums how the general conclusion is that the 300mm end is soft. Unless it was meant that the IS has a longer focal length that the L hasn't got.

Ok my opinion: If u are talking about resolution, contrast and sharpness, the L wins the IS without doubt.

Built and focusing speed, L wins again.

If u need to shoot 200-300mm often, and some low light, the IS comes in handy.

Ultimately, u decide... Willing to trade off some performance for focal length and hand holdability, then go for IS. U want image quality as the top priority, go for the L.

If u shoot digital and especially RAW, u can play with post processing... So usually, u really can't tell whether an image is from an L or a cheaper lens. Good images can be created with the IS over the L if at the end of the day, the skill of the photog is pushed hard enuff.

Neither lens is bad, just your needs to be considered...

actually i think the thread you were referring to was comparing the 70-200 f4 L vs the 75-300 Is, which fares worse than the new 70-300 IS

 

[Peter_Tee]

actually i think the thread you were referring to was comparing the 70-200 f4 L vs the 75-300 Is, which fares worse than the new 70-300 IS

Yes, you are right. The earlier threat compared the old 75-300 IS version. And I was referring the new one released September (I think so).

It is still hard to decide which one I should choose... 300 mm with 20D gives a quite a long range. I believe both are pretty good lenses but I guess I need to test the sharpness by myself in the environment I'd be likely using the lense.

Thanks for all the comments so far!