Canon 70-200 f4 L (non IS) or 70-300 IS??

[odd jim]

Now the recent thread on the 70-300 IS has thrown a spanner into my works!!

I was set on getting the 70-200L f4 (non IS) as I feel I need to upgrade my zoom... However, my concern with this lens was its relatively short reach, which will be fine for my equestrian stuff, but though the IQ would be better than my 55-250 it wont have the reach for motorsport...

The 70-300 IS is only £80 less than the 70-200L on Camerabox. Now I have a dilemma!!

70-200L for its awesome IQ or the 70-300 IS for its reach and pretty damn good IQ??! And is the 70-300 IS much of an upgrade from the 55-250 IQ wise?

For info, I shoot just as much, if not more equestrian than motorsport, though motorsport photography is where most interest and enjoyment lies!

 

[paulyoung666]

i had the 55-250 , sold it for the 70-300 , at first i was less than impressed , now that i have learnt the lens to some degree , i am very happy , see here for more info

 

[pearce_jj]

The L will hold its value better. You can always add a 1.4x TC to the L to take you to 280mm F5.6. OTOH it doesn't have IS which, for me, is very useful. Also the L being big and white does attract unwanted attention.

 

[HoppyUK]

Of those two, the 70-300 IS is the obvious choice. It seems to have the range you need in a neat and afforadable package, plus it has IS which I would not pass up lightly.

An alternative might be the 70-200L 4 IS version with an Canon extender or Kenko Pro TC, but that is a lot more money. Then again a 100-400L would do the lot very well, but it's a big and expensive lens.

Part of the problem is perhaps that the 55-250 is such a great little lens for only £200. Very hard to beat in terms of value, range and performance, but the 70-300 IS has it covered, and with more reach.

 

[odd jim]

Of those two, the 70-300 IS is the obvious choice. It seems to have the range you need in a neat and afforadable package, plus it has IS which I would not pass up lightly.

An alternative might be the 70-200L 4 IS version with an Canon extender or Kenko Pro TC, but that is a lot more money. Then again a 100-400L would do the lot very well, but it's a big and expensive lens.

Part of the problem is perhaps that the 55-250 is such a great little lens for only £200. Very hard to beat in terms of value, range and performance, but the 70-300 IS has it covered, and with more reach.

Indeed. I love my 55-250, its a great little performer! Its only when I'm at tracks like Silverstone where you are sometimes quite a distance from the action that I feel I need that little bit extra reach wise. The other benefit that I can see with the 70-300 is the USM focusing, which I'm assuming is faster than the 55-250? The problem is I dont want to spend the money on the 70-300 if the benefits are only slight!

The 70-200L I was considering for my equestrian stuff, there I dont need so much reach but I'm thinking the 70-300 would do both jobs fine.

 

[kennysarmy]

I've got the 70-200F4L and it's sharp wide open....does nt extend when you zoom and is great for portraits...I can use a x1.4 for extra reach in good light as it does limit to F5.6 but the autofocus still works.

I am however considering selling it after my holiday for the IS version. In the dull light that is british weather I oftern find myself bumping up the ISO higher than I would like to capture portraits where I could get away with shutter speed of say 200....but shots then tend not to look as sharp as you introduce a bit of camera shake...