IS, or better glass? [Canon]

C

Canon Balls

Messages
22
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
My limited budget extends to the following:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (without IS)
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS

I know better glass is essential, but Image Stabilisation also has a lot to offer. With that in mind, which of the two would give the best results?

Or maybe someone could recommend a better telephoto at a similar price point.
 
What are we talking? Waterford crystal versus a stabilised lens? If I was taking photos the lens would win every time. Unless you are talking about the glass in lenses.... ;)
 
I have the 70-300mm. The USM doesn't give full time manual focus, the IS is noisy and the front section rotates as it zooms but the positives include that it goes to 300mm and has IS and the ability to IS pan, it's also more compact than the L lenses and the image quality is good enough for me and therefore as a package it made more sense to me than the L's.

I can't really see these two lenses competing as one goes to 300mm and that could be the deciding factor. If considering a 70-200mm I personally would go for a f2.8.
 
For me IS has always been a major factor - especially if using 300mm.

Without it on a crop camera you would have to use at least 1/500 sec at 300mm unless you could hold it very steady or use a tripod.

Even if using the 200L to photograph birds etc it could give blurred images unless a high shutter speed ( 1/320 sec or over) is used.

Without a doubt the 200L gives better quality but if you can't get a sharp image with it, or are limited to higher shutter speeds then the advantages are lost.

.
 
petersmart said:
For me IS has always been a major factor - especially if using 300mm.

Without it on a crop camera you would have to use at least 1/500 sec at 300mm unless you could hold it very steady or use a tripod.

Even if using the 200L to photograph birds etc it could give blurred images unless a high shutter speed ( 1/320 sec or over) is used.

Without a doubt the 200L gives better quality but if you can't get a sharp image with it, or are limited to higher shutter speeds then the advantages are lost.

.
Click to expand...

Yup. Me thinks that the "L" carries too much weight and that people should really judge on more practical considerations. For instances when a tripod can't be used IS is a godsend and 200mm just isn't 300mm.
 
I have had the 70-200 f4 L non IS for 2 years now. I mainly take pictures of airplanes with it. I regret not having the extra reach of the 300mm, but the IS is never a problem since the weather is usually clear when I shoot (I get 1/1000 s at f6.3 usually). On the other hand, when I use it to shoot people or objects (or a formation of airplanes) the quality of the L glass is a solid argument for this lens, I compared with a 70-300 and it is not comparable, the L lens is much sharper especially at 5.6-6.3. So I would probably go for the 70-300 if your not too fussed about the sharpness because it's a better all-rounder. BUT! I still went for the 70-200 because it's much better built, and I like crisp sharpness... Also, L lenses sell for higher prices second hand then the non-IS plastic stuff... consider that if you're planning to upgrade to a 2.8 one day.
 
Tend to agree with the consensus on this thread - much as I love IS on my 70-200, I'd go for the L even if it meant living without the IS.
 
Canon Balls said:
My limited budget extends to the following:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (without IS)
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS

I know better glass is essential, but Image Stabilisation also has a lot to offer. With that in mind, which of the two would give the best results?

Or maybe someone could recommend a better telephoto at a similar price point.
Click to expand...

Of the two options, I'd take the L any day, though in all honesty, I'd wait a couple of weeks more and get the IS version of the f4 L. Which is what I did :)
 
the 70-200 f/4L is my favourite lens i have ever owned, light, sharp wide open ( I mean really sharp ) and well built. I only got rid of it as I needed f/2.8 for indoor equestrian events and only paid for IS on the f/2.8 due to wanting weather sealing for mountaineering.

i think it is in a different league to the 70-300 and will provide you with far better images. IS is overrated.
 
alastairb said:
the 70-200 f/4L is my favourite lens i have ever owned, light, sharp wide open ( I mean really sharp ) and well built. I only got rid of it as I needed f/2.8 for indoor equestrian events and only paid for IS on the f/2.8 due to wanting weather sealing for mountaineering.

i think it is in a different league to the 70-300 and will provide you with far better images. IS is overrated.
Click to expand...



Is L glass always that much more superior, my understanding was it was introduced on some lenses to designate them as Luxury.

I'm a nikon shooter and we don't have that kind of designation, price would be an indicator, but build quality and performance is surely what matters. Personally I love IS buy the only full frame lens I own that has it in the nikon range is the 70-200 2.8 if that didn't have IS but there was an f4 equivalent that did I would be very tempted by the f4 especially if it was much lighter.

If nikon released the 24-70 with IS I would trade my non IS version in tomorrow. I am considering the new nikon 28-120 f4 (might have that range wrong) but need to try it out as I have heard conflicting reports on IQ. As much as I love fast glass, modern IS is so good I can handhold the 70-200 down to ridiculous speeds and that is a very nice feature indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top