Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS lens vs Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L lens [Archive] - GrandAmGT.com Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS lens vs Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L lens


Mike Jung
04-11-2007, 11:11 AM
...Lookin to pick up the canon ef 70-300 IS USM.. the 70-200 USM f/4.0L is real close in price.

Gonna be using it a lot of handheld, lots of moving stuff... you think it's beneficial to stick with the 70-300 or go with the 70-200L ??...
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS lens (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=11922)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L lens (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7345)

Help someone decide, that PM'd me.

Mike Jung
04-11-2007, 11:18 AM
If it was me:

I would buy the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L lens.

Better glass is :thumbs:

At B&H Photo in NYC (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=183198&is=USA&addedTroughType=search) it is $579.95 US.
Which IMO is a steal for that type of glass quality.

Note: the Tripod collar is sold seperately.
$89.95 US at B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=211436&is=REG&addedTroughType=search)


The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS lens is $549.95 US at B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=397663&is=USA&addedTroughType=search) anyways.

But for the price, get the better glass.

The only "advantage" to getting the 70-300 over the 70-200 is:
it has more magnifacation,
it has IS

But the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L lens will kill it in image quality.

PS: If you want the newer Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 IS L lens (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=14260), it will cost you $480 US more (at $1059.95 US (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=457678&is=USA&addedTroughType=search))
& the tripod collar mount for it costs $54 US more (at $143.95 US (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=478561&is=REG&addedTroughType=search)).

iceman
04-11-2007, 07:35 PM
See... the IS is important to me coz I'll prob be taking pics of moving things most of the time...

bah, maybe I'll just get the 70-200 IS . didn't want to spend a grand on a lens but oh well

Mike Jung
04-11-2007, 07:42 PM
See... the IS is important to me coz I'll prob be taking pics of moving things most of the time...
Use faster shutter speeds then.

It will freeze any handheld shake caused by you.
That is what the IS is for, camera shake.

Plus the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS lens will be no fun at 300mm at f/5.6.
(that is 1/2 the light, 1-stop less than f/4.0.)

Yea, a good IS lens is nice.
But I could/have lived without it.

I have an old school Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8 lens that weighs about a ton (almost 1,220g / approx. 2 lbs 10.3 oz).
Back in the day of the Nikon F4s generation lol

PS: If you want to go all out & be a :balla:
Get the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L lens (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7469) ($1,699.95 US (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=234444&is=USA&addedTroughType=search)) :heh:

iceman
04-11-2007, 08:23 PM
yeah, I know moving stuff, will be using faster shutter speed anyways.. yadda yadda, gotta make a decision i spose. :Ec:

iceman
07-10-2007, 08:29 PM
Alright Mike...

Ended up going with the Sigma f/2.8 70-200mm. Tried both that and the Canon 70-200, I couldn't justify the extra cost, especially for the IS version.

Came with a nice bag, but good news, fits in my existing backpack :)


http://www.ice8420.com/sigma.JPG
http://www.ice8420.com/sigma2.JPG

SikMindz
07-10-2007, 08:36 PM
Holy fock that is monstrous. You might give a girl an orgasm if you're shooting an upskirt...

Mike Jung
07-10-2007, 09:12 PM
Nice, compromise :applause:

Once you use f/2.8 zoom lenses, you don't want anything else but lol

iceman
07-10-2007, 09:37 PM
Yeah.. friend has the same lens, and from what I've read, it's on par or better than the 70-200 canon 2.8. So, I can use the extra coin for other stuff

Holy fock that is monstrous. You might give a girl an orgasm if you're shooting an upskirt...



hear that a lot.. normally **** or tongue does the trick tho.

iceman
08-06-2007, 10:33 PM
Nice, compromise :applause:

Once you use f/2.8 zoom lenses, you don't want anything else but lol

Well, got a bunch of good pics w/ this thing.


(taken from left field)
http://www.ice8420.com/iceman/photography/baseball/processed-_MG_3593.jpg

http://www.ice8420.com/iceman/photography/baseball/processed-_MG_3608.jpg

(check out the tire)
http://www.ice8420.com/iceman/meets/gaoc_albany_07/processed-_MG_3481.jpg