Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM vs Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM

W

Whiters

Messages
169
Name
Ross
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone, I currently own the latter 75-300mm III and am seeking a better telephoto lens, largely for taking photos of dogs at play, running on the beach etc. However I'm on a limited budget so don't want to pay more than about £300 for the new lens.

I was wondering if the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is a substantial step-up for me on my 75-300mm - i.e is their advantages other than just the IS? I'm also wondering if the IS will actually help with action shots of dogs in low light? If not then maybe the 70-200mm L is a better option for me?
 
Optically, the 70-300 IS is a very good lens, it'd be a massive step up from the 75-300. The IS won't help when shooting action and can actually slow you down but can be useful when working in low light with a slower lens.

IF you can get a 70-200 f/4L for your budget though, grab it. You won't get much better.
 
If 200mm is enough, go with the L.. If not, the 70-300 will be Adefinite step up in IQ but a tad slow. Or still get the L and crop, it can take it.
 
Focus is almost instant on L lenses. The 70-300 IS is pretty quick at focussing though, Jukka is referring to the aperture of the lens as being slow (f4.5/5.6) compared to f/4 on the L.

Whiters said:
What does the L stand for btw?
Click to expand...

Luxury
 
Last edited:
Since you asked:
It stands for 'Luxury', which is a little stupid sounding, but generally it means the lens is optically of high quality and built very well.

In short, it's canon's 'pro' lenses.

The focussing will be quicker, but by speed he is referring to the max aperture, the 70-300 is only f/4-5.6, whereas the 70-200 is f/4 across the whole range, so it's a stop faster at 200mm (meaning you can get shutter speeds twice as fast).
The 70-200 would be sharper, built better, faster focussing, and you can always buy a 1.4x TC later to get a 98-280mm f/5.6 as well, which will still be very sharp.
 
Thanks for the all the advice guys, very helpful as always. I think I'm leaning towards the 70-200 now, due to the faster aperture (thanks for explaining that!), better image quality and the fact that the IS on the 70-300 wouldn't be much use to me anyway.

I'll let you know what I go for eventually, although I'm currently wrestling with my conciensce about how much I'm spending on photography gear at the moment! (have recently upgraded by super wide angle and walkabout for landscapes, and started with the Lee filter system too).
 
You can't take it with you and given the government *$%&* up the economy you will be doing your bit for the nation.:clap:

Spend, spend,spend I say:lol:

Oh yes- 70-200 good choice
 
excellent choice with the 70-200.

One of canon's top lenses (in real terms, where money in limited) IMO.
 
A used 70-200 F4L will come in at pretty similar price to a new 70-300 IS.

Re the wrestling with conscience thing.... don't over-exert. I've seen many people overspend on something they got into, then sold all of their stuff (at significant loss) to salve their conscience. Of course then they missed it, and bought the next thing and so the cycle begins again... Better to do it slowly in steps you can afford to keep.
 
You mention action shots in low light - this alone suggests to me that you would be better off with the 70-200mm F4 - even though it doesn't have IS.

It's a superb lens, some of my best 'winter months' dog shots were taken with it when I had one - I've since upgraded to the IS version but only because it was at a price I couldn't refuse!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top