Why should i get a canon 70-200 f4 when.......

bomberman

bomberman

Messages
1,149
Edit My Images
No
....the 70-300 IS USM is cheaper, has excellent IQ, Image stabilization, and longer reach :shrug:

can anyone give me a good reason?
 
F/4 for the entire range, solid build quality, better IQ from centre thru edge, holds value on the seconhand market better.

But, the 70-300 is a good lens which offers better range and IS for when you need to shoot <1/200sec.
 
You won't know until you try one!

I would say it depends on what you want to do, how much you are going to use or abuse it.

There is no comparison in build quality, IQ or maximum aperture, if you do not need those things yet need more reach and IS and want to save money then the 75-300 is the lens for you.
 
Are you comparing the 70-300 IS USM against the Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM?
The answer is in the 'L'.
L lenses are the Pro series of lenses and they generally give a much sharper photo and the build quality is a lot better.
Have a look here at the price differences: http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat5.html
 
I have a 70-300 IS USM, use it for wildlife and I think it's awesome! The only reason it's going up for sale is I'm replacing it with a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 100-400 L. I can point you in the direction of some shots taken with it if you'd like? The 70-200 f/4 wasn't the right lens for me, hence I saved for a 2.8, and now I'm saving for the 100-400 for my long wildlife lens!
 
because the aperture changes on the 70-300. The longer you go the more light you lose and the lower your shutter speeds become.

On the 70-200 it stays at f4 throughout the range. It's absolutely tack sharp and the colour rendition is first class.

Even though I have the 70-200 f2.8IS I have kept the 70-200f4 because it really IS that good and it gives me a much lighter option.
 
70-200 f/4 is great up to 200mm. It is an excellent lightweight generic telephoto with excellent IQ. It is possible to extend it to 280mm f/5.6 with 1.4x, but then if you mostly need 300mm the other lens or 300mm f/4 IS are much better choices. For studio, portraits, events and walkabout L is excellent, but you may soon want the f/2.8 version that is even better.

edit: 70-300mm has noticeable fringing and CA, whereas 70-200 behaves better. It may be important for some uses.
 
Hashcake, yeah that's right. Photozone reviews the 70-300 as an 'L' lens in disguise except without the sturdy build quality. It's a tough choice with the extra 100mm and IS.

Chris i'd love to see some of your shots!

I've seen some fringing at 300mm on the 70-300 but it wasn't too drastic. If i had the cash i would definitely be looking at the 70-200 2.8 both for sports (forest mountain biking), portraits and wildlife but i don't so that's that. The teleconverter brings the f stop down so using it with the f4... may as well get the 70-300...
 
mind you i have seen some *stunning* shots of a bald eagle taken with the f4.

Chris i'd be interested to pick your brains a bit about wildlife shots and lenses
 
The IS on the 70-300 is not just useful for capturing images, it is useful for framing your shot too.
 
The only problem with buying your first "L" lens is that it makes you want more. Ignorance is bliss:).
 
Orville said:
The only problem with buying your first "L" lens is that it makes you want more. Ignorance is bliss:).
Click to expand...

This is very true. I recently bougt the f4 from our own kerso and I absolutely love it. I'm now looking at a 24-70, 85 and some others. What else are student loans for? :nuts::nuts:

Tom N.
 
Hi until recently I had just a 70-300. Now I have upgraded to a 70-200 IS. No comparison. OK reach isn't the same, but for what I do, I find that mostly I don't shoot at 300 anyway.
Its a matter of budget, I guess.
 
bomberman said:
Chris i'd love to see some of your shots!
Click to expand...

I won't clutter up the thread with lots of photos, but here are links for a couple:

1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisw321/3834776338/in/set-72157604185034796/

2. http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisw321/3141407652/in/set-72157604185034796/

3. http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisw321/3833981227/in/set-72157604185034796/

4. http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisw321/3134687455/

The last was a real test of the camera, lens, and my technique. It's a huge crop, taken at 300mm and at a shutter speed lower than should be possible. At 300mm on a crop sensor, the lowest shutter speed to eliminate camera shake is around 1/500, but with the IS it was 1/250, and most of the reduction in detail is due to my 450D not really liking ISO 800. I don't think I'd really consider a lens over 200mm not having IS, it really does make a world of difference when setting up the shot!

Any more questions just shout!
 
Wildlife Photography is more often than not about reach, Therefore the 70-300 has the advantage, however as has been said the 70-200L wins on IQ, build quality etc.
Another option not being considered and would require a little more saving is the 100-400 L....
However if that is not an option, personally, I would go 70-200L f4 IS USM, with a 1.4x converter in my bag. The IS can be invaluable on days when our weather is not brilliant as you get 2 extra stops (slower shutter speed without blur). If you can not stretch to the 70-200 IS, then seriously consider the 70-300 IS...

I would see if you can try both for yourself before you part with your hard earned.....
 
Orville said:
The only problem with buying your first "L" lens is that it makes you want more. Ignorance is bliss:).
Click to expand...

Yes, very true.
I had the 70-300 IS, but wanted more reach, until recently. It is a good lens.
I now have the 100-400L, and a lust to move the rest of my zoom lenses to L
ouch
:bang:
 
Thanks, a lot of food for thought there. That shot of the leopard is fantastic Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top