Just a Question

[Boracho]

Not looking to buy right now, but for future reference, just wanted to get your opinions. I myself don't shoot much more than Nature. I was wondering since they run about the same price what would be better, Canon 70-300 IS USM or the 70-200 F/4L. I really like the IS so that is what I would lean towards, as well as the extra focal length, and really wouldn't want to pay $500 more to get the 70-200 with IS. Then, if I was to get a 1.4 TC, I would still have less focal length and no IS.

[pippin]

image quality is better from the 70-200 lenses over the 70-300.

[xjben]

I'd get the 70-200 for the faster speed (more light). You'll give up a little range on the long end, but have more flexibility. You can often get closer to things, but harder to "make" light sometimes. Of course, depends on what you plan to shoot and under what conditions. Also, I didn't look, but I assume the 70-200 is bigger and heavier than the 70-300 so take that into consideration if it matters to you. You can certainly get good pictures with the less expensive lenses, just more restrictive on your lighting for and I think usually they're a little slower (focusing).

[Boracho]

The 70-300 USM IS is just as expensive as the 70-200 F/4L USM so that is why I would be flip flopping between the two. I know that L lenses obviously will get you great quality pictures, but I wouldn't have the IS and of course as I stated before just that little less distance. Weight of the lens really isn't a factor for me.

[JPalmer]

Here's a bit of info on the 70-300 that you need to read if you haven't already.

And this about the 70-200....which I believe is a IS lens because it's an L

Anyways....judging by the reviews, I'd get the f4 lens 9 out of 10 times over the other.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by JPalmer

Here's a bit of info on the 70-300 that you need to read if you haven't already.

And this about the 70-200....which I believe is a IS lens because it's an L

Anyways....judging by the reviews, I'd get the f4 lens 9 out of 10 times over the other.

There are two flavors of the 70-200/4.0L one with IS just introduced at Photokina and the older non-IS. I got a 70-200/2.8L IS but kept the 70-200/4.0L non-IS as it's just too sharp and light to use in many situations, I couldn't see not having it.

Here are good user reports on both, Non-IS - IS.

[Boracho]

Yeah, I was at Fred Miranda last night and read lots of reviews of the Non-IS and IS lenses, even the 70-300 reviews. I already decided that I would buy the 70-200 just because of all the great things people say about it and the quality it has. Also with the fast focusing it is more appealing to me. Some of the people also say that the sharpness is not as good at 200+ on the 70-300 and with a 1.4 TC the L lens should keep its sharpness at 280.