Canon 70-200L vs 70-300IS

Woblee

Woblee

Messages
1,306
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
I've had a look through the old topics and can't see it asked before.......


I'm starting to save to replace a borrowed 75-300. Which lens would you guys/gals rate as being the better lens.


EF 70-200 f4 L USM (£529 rough price from warehouse express)
or
EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM (£429 from w/e)


Is it worth justifying the loss of 100mm and IS and £100 for the upgrade to the 'L' and the constant f4??

(although I may get a 2x convertor down the line).
 
It all depends if you need the extra 100mm? i wouldnt think about a 2x with the lens either the images wont be up to much, and wont AF on your camera.

The 70-300 is a very good lens especially if you stop it down a bit. PM Kerso (seller on here) and you will get a more reasonable price for both or keep an eye on the classifieds.
 
You won't be able to use the 2x converter on a 400D as the effective aperture will be f/8 - meaning that AF is lost

Personally, I would prefer the 70-300IS purely because of the IS. Handholding will require shutter speeds faster than 1/320s on the 70-200 without IS and that can then conflict with getting the aperture small enough to give a depth of field that can be measured in inches rather than millimeters.
 
The 2x converter ruins the 70-200 anyway. I tried it with the f/2.8 version and it was horrendous.
 
Thanks for the speedy replies. I sort of knew the 300IS was the one to go for, but the marketing boys always tempt you into wanting the 'L' lenses. And being honest I probably wouldn't have want to have lost the 100mm.
Thought it would be better upgrading my lenses and only worry about the body when it packs in.

will give the 2x a wide berth then ;)

I'll collar Kerso when I have the pennies


Thanks again :thumbs:
 
I can give you my recent experience on this, but I have the 70-200 IS not the non IS to replace my 70-300.

When I first got the 70-300 I was amazed by the IS (even though it is now quite old, only 2 stops I think) and the IQ up to about 200mm is OK but being picky it goes down hill pretty quickly from there, especially wide open. It also suffers quite a bit with chromatic aberration at the longer focal lengths, especially if shooting into the light.

Having said that I am a bit of a OCD pixel peeper so your view may be different.

At the shorter focal lengths and even wide open this lens is very good.

The thing I didn't like was the focusing performance (on my 40D) the "USM" focusing drive is not Ring USM but micro motor USM, and especially at the longer end (f5.6) it would often hunt and struggle to lock, for moving subjects using servo AF it was generally poor at tracking - just how it works.

Stationary subjects in good light, short end of the zoom - OK.

I bought a 70-200 f4 L IS USM from Kerso along with a 1.4 Extender and all I can say is WOW!.

Even allowing for the fact that the 70-200 and 1.4 exxtender combo is more than twice a expensive as the 70-300 on it's own I am very pleased I made the jump. I would not have bought the nonIS version having used the 70-300.

Only downside of this is that I have to swap out the 1.4 every so often but a small price to pay I feel.

HTH

David
 
Thanks for the comments David.

I would love the 200 IS, but as you say it is double the price. I suppose I can only take comfort in that as long as I keep the 300 IS in good condition I should get a fairly good price on the second hand market.
 
The23rdman said:
The 2x converter ruins the 70-200 anyway. I tried it with the f/2.8 version and it was horrendous.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just a snob but I'd not even think of putting any kind of teleconverter in front of my glass.

529 quid for an 'L' seems very good...
 
Woblee said:
Thanks for the comments David.

I would love the 200 IS, but as you say it is double the price. I suppose I can only take comfort in that as long as I keep the 300 IS in good condition I should get a fairly good price on the second hand market.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly, but I'm very likely to spend any money from the sale of the 70-300 on more glass :bonk:

David
 
I have the 70-200 IS which I got second hand for £650. It's astonishingly good. If the non-IS is anything close and I was short of funds I'd go with the 70-200 non-IS. IS only helps in low light when you're photographing stationary objects. If it's moving then it doesn't help you. The IQ of the 70-200's is obvious. Personally I'd take it over IS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top