70-300 IS V 70-200 f4 IQ ?

[scottduffy]

Is there a massive amount of difference between the IQ these two lenses produce? I read on another thread that there isn't any at all until after you zoom to above 200mm on the 70-300 IS. I would have thought that the L series lens would have produced better results. Anyone who has used both lenses care to comment?

 

[pearce_jj]

the 70-200 is probably one of the best zooms ever made. In IS form it rivals primes throughout the range. Also you can add a 1.4x tc to it taking it to 280mm F5.6.

 

[sym_richard]

IMO, 70-200 F4 is sharper

 

[HoppyUK]

Is there a massive amount of difference between the IQ these two lenses produce? I read on another thread that on the there isn't any at all until after you zoom to above 200mm 70-300 IS. I would have thought that the L series lens would have produced better results. Anyone who has used both lenses care to comment?

That's strangely worded, since the 70-200 is obviously hopeless above 200mm If you put a 1.4x extender on it, it would be a tough call to separate them. But that's a guess.

If it helps, I would choose between the two on spec, not IQ. When put to the test, the 70-200 4 L has got to have the edge, but it is damn close, and the L is more sturdily built, and does not extend when zooming. A lot of the cost of an L lens goes into the build. However, the 70-300 is usefully longer, and has IS.

I'm about to get a 70-200 4 L IS, but I would have swung to the 70-300 if I did not also have a 100-400L.

From a sharpness point of view, check out Canon's MTF graphs:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=11922
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7345

 

[scottduffy]

I only meant that there is a little drop in image quality in the 70-300 at 200mm and above. I know the 70-200 isn't much use after 200mm

 

[artona]

totally different lenses. I have a 70-200L lens and was recently lent a 70-300 to try. I did not like the built quality of the 70-300

stew

 

[HoppyUK]

I only meant that there is a little drop in image quality in the 70-300 at 200mm and above. I know the 70-200 isn't much use after 200mm

LOL yes Looking at those graphs, the 70-300 gets weaker at the long end, whereas the 70-200 gets a bit stronger (IS version is better still). Shame you can't compare the two at 200mm in this way.

If you want a bit of a scare, check out the MTFs for the EF-S 55-250mm. It's plastic and lacks USM focusing, but it does have IS, weighs nothing, costs only £200, and is as sharp as you like! It's not just about IQ. It's EF-S of course, designed to just cover the crop format and no more - look how the edge sharpness nose-dives in the extreme corners, whereas the EF lenses carry on giving good sharpness over the full-frame format, which is kind of important if you shoot full frame, but a complete waste if you're on a crop camera.

EF-S 55-250 IS here:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=15700