70-300 IS or 70-200 f/4?

Bretagnez

Bretagnez

Messages
314
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
I'll be planning to get one of these lenses - 70-200 F4L or 70-300 IS around August time and I thought I'd just get my research in now.

I'd be using this for sports mainly: local/school football, rugby and cricket and some athletics type stuff. Could also be used for portraiture if I end up getting into it.

Just wanted to get some ideas of what the image quality is like from each lens, along with sharpness and such like.

What kind of trade offs I would have to be making such as the IS and the extra 100mm for constant aperture and improved image quality(?) or sharpness(?).
Pro's and Con's sort of thing - if anyone could point me in the direction of any comparisons or anything that may have already been discussed then that'd be great.

Maybe even consider second hand Sigma 70-200 f/2.8?

Any help is much appreciated!
 
the L is probably one of the sharpest zooms available, second to the IS version. Then again it's not exactly subtle.
 
You mention portraiture and athletics, so I do think you'll need low light capability.

Not on your list, but do consider the 135L. You know there is not a huge difference between 135mm and 200mm. And you can crop slightly with the 40d.

A great lens and always in demand second hand, so not too much risk if it's not for you.

Graham
 
pearce_jj said:
the L is probably one of the sharpest zooms available, second to the IS version. Then again it's not exactly subtle.
Click to expand...

Okay cheers. That was one of the main things I was looking for.
That's a very good point, however I doubt I'd be using it so much as a walkaround lens. However, still a valid point. Would you be able to hand hold it? From pictures I've seen - I assume so but it can be tricky to judge.

Cheers
 
blue max said:
You mention portraiture and athletics, so I do think you'll need low light capability.

Not on your list, but do consider the 135L. You know there is not a huge difference between 135mm and 200mm. And you can crop slightly with the 40d.

A great lens and always in demand second hand, so not too much risk if it's not for you.

Graham
Click to expand...

That's true, what are second hand prices like? Because I'm only looking to spend around £450ish, depending.
 
I went for the 70-200, though i was deciding between that and the 50-250 at the time.
I'm glad i went for the 70-200 now. The extra reach was really tempting me, not to mention the lower price. But in the end i decided what is the point in a bit more reach if i might not be happy with the IQ.

Though now i am looking for another lens with more reach to accompany the 70-200. This hobby is like crack. :lol:
 
bass_junkie83 said:
I went for the 70-200, though i was deciding between that and the 50-250 at the time.
I'm glad i went for the 70-200 now. The extra reach was really tempting me, not to mention the lower price. But in the end i decided what is the point in a bit more reach if i might not be happy with the IQ.

Though now i am looking for another lens with more reach to accompany the 70-200. This hobby is like crack. :lol:
Click to expand...

:lol:
True true. I've kinda realised that no matter what I buy, I'll be wanting something else within the next couple of weeks!

You like lens overall and happy with the IQ etc?
 
Bretagnez said:
:lol:
True true. I've kinda realised that no matter what I buy, I'll be wanting something else within the next couple of weeks!

You like lens overall and happy with the IQ etc?
Click to expand...

I love it. I would only get rid if i was upgrading to the f2.8 i think.
But if you NEED the length for what you intend to shoot then there is no getting round that. Having the 70-200 and now used to the IQ but now wanting a longer lens means i'm looking at a 400mm f5.6. It easily snowballs.

I suppose what they say is true, ignorance is bliss. If i had gone for a longer zoom lens i'm sure i would be happy with both IQ and length and would remain blissfully unaware of how the 70-200 performs. Anyone got a time machine?
 
bass_junkie83 said:
I suppose what they say is true, ignorance is bliss. If i had gone for a longer zoom lens i'm sure i would be happy with both IQ and length and would remain blissfully unaware of how the 70-200 performs. Anyone got a time machine?
Click to expand...

Would agree with this, I think whichever lens you get, you'll be happy with it. The 70-300 IS is a good lens and you won't be disappointed, but the 70-200 is a very nice lens - just to add to your confusion :bonk:
 
I had a few test shots at weekend with the following

70-200F4L
70-300IS
55-250IS

I would purchase in this order mainly due to image quality but also regarding build quality.
If you require more than 200mm buy a 1.4 convertor

Dave
 
> Would you be able to hand hold it?

Yes it's fine, just follow min.shutter = focal length rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top