Deciding between the 70-300 IS and 70-200 IS L

[Chuck1961]

In December I upgraded from a Rebel to a 7D with an 18-135 IS lens. The difference is incredible. I'd now like to get a new long lens. I currently have a Tamron 28-200 that's 3-5 years old and a Canon 100-300 USM that I bought in 1992. I am an amateur and generally don't print much over 8x10, but I suppose that could change with a better lens.

As the title says, I'm trying to decide between the Canon 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f4.0 L, possibly with IS. My thoughts: The 70-300 IS and 70-200 f4.0 L (no IS) cost about the same. Given these two choices, do I go for the extra 100mm and IS at the cost of 1 f stop and better glass? Some reviews I've read suggest the 70-300 is not great in the 250-300mm range, so IS may be the only advantage here. Given the resolution of the 7D, would I be better off getting the 70-200 L lens and cropping the shot?

But if I get the 70-200 L, then do I spend another $400-500 or so to get IS? Amazon has two open box warehouse 70-200 f4.0 L IS lenses for about $1,050.

Or is there a better non-Canon or prime alternative that I have not considered?

I appreciate any thoughts.

[BigVinnie]

I had the 70-300 IS and was not that happy with it. It is fine out to about 200 to 250 but at 300 it was just too soft.

You choice is really going to come down to what you are shooting. You did not state in your post.

I was lucky enough to have a local camera club and was able to borrow both the f4 and the 2.8. I really like the 2.8 for people pictures. On the other hand I carry my gear around a lot in a backpack. The weight savings with the F4 is considerable. I also found the F4 to be sharper. The new 2.8 II lens is better but much more bucks.

I personally chose the F4 non IS. I'm either using it with plenty of light or on a tripod. The IS was not worth the extra money. I use an 85 1.8 or a 50 1.4 for about 95% of my people pictures anyways. You can get the F4 non-IS and an 85 1.8 in top used condition for about the same money as an F4 with IS.

Then again I'm a little off. One of my favorite lenses is my old manual focus Tamron 500mm mirror lens

[RichardTaylor]

I own both lenses.

This was my response to a similar question a couple of years ago.

I have a 350D and now a 40D & 5D
==================

I have both lenses. The 70-200 F4L (Non IS) and the 70-300 IS.

The main differences in "quality"are, IMHO< (on a 350D (Rebel XT)).

(1) The 70-200 focuses faster.
(2) The 70-200 build quality feels better.
(3) The 70-200 is very sharp right from F4 where on the the 70-300 it needs to be stopped down a couple of stops for best IQ.

I am very happy with both lenses and both more than meet my needs for IQ (prints to A4 and web publishing)

The 70-300 sees most use as i like the extra length which comes in handy for motorsports and birding. It is also my long telephoto travel lens.
If I was doing it all again I would have purchased the 70-200 F2.8 L (Non IS) instead of the F4 version as the wider aperture would definitely come in more handy for night drag racing, graduations etc.

Hope this helps.
=============================

Here is yet another response in another thread.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Compared to the 70-200 F4 L non IS.
(1) Do you need the extra 100mm?
(2) Can you live with the reduced IQ especially at wider apertures?
(3) Do want to pay for a lens hood?
(4) Do you want to buy a larger camera bag to carry the 70-200? It is physically longer
(5) do you want slower focussing?
(6) Can you live without the constant F4?
(7) Can you live without the the better build quality (feel)?
(8) If using a polariser does the rotating font element cause you problems?
(9) Re IS.... Can you hand hold at relatively low shutter speed ot do you want to always carry a tripod to use this lens in poor light at longer focal lengths?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

@ Chuck1961

What you want to use your new lens for?

[Chuck1961]

Thank you both. I would use it primarily for wildlife/nature/birds. I want the lens to be reasonably portable so I can take it hiking. I'll usually have a monopod but often not a tripod. I don't shoot many people.

Based on both your posts the decision is now down to the 70-200 f4.0 L lenses, confirming my original thoughts. I am guess ing that a sharp, cropped shot at 200mm using the L lens will be superior to a less sharp, uncropped 300 mm shot using the non-L.

I have to decide between IS or not. I don't see the f2.8 as being a realistic option given the size and cost.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Chuck1961

Thank you both. I would use it primarily for wildlife/nature/birds. I want the lens to be reasonably portable so I can take it hiking. I'll usually have a monopod but often not a tripod. I don't shoot many people.

Based purely on this paragraph, im gonna argue that you're barking up the wrong tree. You need to be looking at the difference between 400 and 500, not 200 and 300. I'd recommend Canon's 100-400, at the least, or Canons 400/5.6

That being said, what's wrong with your CURRENT 100-300?

[RichardTaylor]

+1 OsmosisStudios

For birds (and possibly wildlife) 200mm is usually much too short especially if you are shooting in the wild (not suburbia).

Here's why.

All pics shot with a 1.6 crop camera.

(1) 200mm in portrait mode.


(2) 200mm in landscape mode.


Notice the shooting distances. Can you get that close?

Excluding vacations where I will be doing a lot of international flights I use a Canon 100-400 F4.5-F5.6 IS L lens, usually on a monopod, for my birding & wildlife shots and motor sport shots.
It is an extreemly versatile long lens.
Examples
These were taken on the same morning at a suburban cemetary.

(3) The birds a wild - 400mm @ F5.6


(4) approx 1/2 earlier - 400mm @ F10


For vacations where I will be doing a lot of flying the 70-300 is the long general purpose lens I take. However if I was specifically going to shoot wild life it would be the 100-400.

The 70-200 is my outdoor "event lens" like parades, citizenship ceremonies etc.

Hope this helps.

[inkista]

I'd amend OS's comment to "between 300mm and 400mm", since he's spending someone else's money and you're spending your own. While you can get to 500mm in the $1k-$2k range, it's only done via Sigma or teleconverters.

If you are going to go up to $1200 (as you would with the 70-200 f/4 IS), then you may want to look at the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM and the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM which are in that same price range. With birds and wildlife, you are rarely going to need the lower end of the zoom range. For me scrambling about back canyons after raptors, with very little birding ability, I use a 400mm prime all the time, and I'm still cropping about 90% of my shots.


That's from a 50D, and severely cropped.

At the zoo, it's a different story. Which is why the 100-400 is well worth the extra price for the framing capability. However, the 400 prime is optically as good (or better than the 100-400 @400mm, depending on who you talk to), lighter, autofocuses more quickly than the zoom, and takes teleconverters better. But it does lack IS, and it's usage is much narrower than the 100-400's because a prime that long means a 3° field of view.

The 300 f/4 prime is (again) more general-purpose than the 400mm. If you shoot mainly sports and birds only occasionally, then the 300/4 and a 1.4x tc are probably a better combination for you. But if you're birding 90% of the time, you want at least 400mm before you start extending, because birds are small and it's hard to fill a frame with them from distances they'll allow.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by inkista

I'd amend OS's comment to "between 300mm and 400mm", since he's spending someone else's money and you're spending your own.

Bah, such a buzzkill

[Chuck1961]

Thanks for all of the advice. I think I'll hold off for now and make due with my current lenses. I should probably spend more time with the new camera before dropping lots of bucks on new glass. But I do think that from now on it's L lenses or nothing. No more of this incremental upgrading.