70-200 f4 vs. 70-300IS (non DO)

I posted a similar question on the lens forum and got some good replies - but not very many! So I'm now going to pose the question on my "home" forum:

I'm looking to get a tele zoom to compliment my 17-85 & 50/1.8 on a 20D.

It will be used for mainly photos of "the kids" doing all the things kids usually do (currently aged under 2 to 8) and other "general" photography.

I was just about ready to order the 70-200 f4 (can't justify cost of new IS version or size/cost of 2.8)

BUT, then I started to read about the 70-300IS non DO. OK, so this is heading nearer to "consumer" land, but am I really anything more than an enthusiastic consumer? I love photography, but a) don't make any money from it and b) rarely make big prints.

So, for a keen and (would like to be) serious amateur which is the best tele zoom, keeping cost firmly in mind!

Your thoughts, ideas, comments and suggestions gratefully recieved, as ever! Thanks.

keeping cost in mind, the longest zoom you can afford, with the largest possible aperture, failing that, one with IS: will be your best bet.

If you really want to go even cheaper, check out sigma4less.com - there are a lot of 300mm zooms there for less than canon prices. They're still "consumer" grade, but like you said - if you don't make large prints, you will rarely be able to tell.

A good bet for one that will rarely leave your camera is a sigma 28-300mm. Runs in the realm of $250 if I remember correctly. I had a good copy, back in the day, and loved it.
Adam
--



~

I´ve the same kit: 20D + 17-85 IS + 50 1,8 and 70-300 IS.
I´m not a pro and I´m very glad with this lens.

The 70-300 IS is a great lens and have sharp images and nice colours, plus teh IS is a real bonus.
With this three lens you cover the entire range.

I also have kids and the 70-300 IS is real good for taking pictures of kids playing an running.
In 70/90 mm is great for portraits in f5,6 to f8; depending on your tastes.

If you don´t matter about rotating the front element and considering that the construction is not the same of an ´L´ lens, don´t hesitate: go for it.

I've got the 70-300 IS and have not tried the 70-200 f/4L. So I cannot answer any direct comparison questions.

But, things I like about the 70-300 IS are:

The IS is fantastic. I shoot at 1/15th at 300mm no problem and there is no way I'd attempt that without IS.

The 300mm end is used a lot. I'd miss the range between 200 and 300 if I had the 70-200.

The lens seems to me to be plenty sharp and now that the "portrait mode problem" has been fixed, it's a good solid lens IMO.

Things I DON'T like about the 70-300 IS are:

The lack of full-time-manual focusing and the relatively poor manual focus ring. I really do wish it had FTM. I miss that on both of the lenses that I've got that do not have it. The 50mm f/1.8 and this 70-300 IS do not have FTM, and it's a noticeable drawback for me.

The end of the lens extends and rotates as you focus. That would be a problem if I was using a polarizing filter but other than that, it's not much of an issue. But you do have to switch the lens to manual focus to get it to fully "retract" to its shortest length when you're ready to stow it.

I wish it was a constant f/2.8 But then you weren't comparing it to the f/2.8 lenses which are vastly more expensive.

So this is a lens that does the job for me when I need a telephoto. I'd say that the AF works just fine and it's a decently sharp lens. Some reviews have said that optically, it's the equal of the 70-200 f/4 L. I have no way to evaluate that personally.

It's so hard to say which of the two lenses you're considering would be the best for you. I do love the IS and the 300mm end of the 70-300. I think for me, it was a better choice than the 70-200 F/4 L. But the 70-200 f/4 L has an outstanding reputaion and I don't think you'd be disappointed with it at all.

--
Jim H.

That pretty much sums it up Jim.

I too went for the 70-300 IS in preference to the 70-200 f/4. I've used the 70-200 and it's unquestionably better built and feels nicer to use from a mechanical point of view but the IS and extra reach outways that for me. Optically I don't think there is much if any noticable difference [ now the portrait prob has been fixed ]. The 70-200 is 2/3rd of a stop faster from around 135mm to 200mm but again that's not a big deal for me compared to the extra reach and IS.

The new 70-200 f/4 IS is way more expensive than either the 70-300 or the old non IS 70-200. If it had been nearer in price the choice would have been harder but as it stands I think the 70-300 IS is by far the biggest bang for your buck [ as you americans say ] you can get in that sort of focal range.

Interesting - I thought the 70-200 had the stronger following. Perhaps the 70-300 fans just shout louder!

Thanks to the responses received so far. I might try to borrow / hire both lenses for a day or two, or buy both and return one...

I have both, but I bought the 70-200 mainly for shooting kart races in good light.

The 70-300 is a good lens, IQ very close to the 70-200, focuses almost as fast, it has a little more reach and the IS works great. For general use, that would be my choice.

It doesn't have the build or the feel of the 70-200, but the other thins make up for it in general use.
--
Jim
http://www.pbase.com/jgraziano/canon_eos_20d

This is the IQ comparison I did between the two lenses.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=20292068
--
Jim
http://www.pbase.com/jgraziano/canon_eos_20d

I have the 70-200/2.8L IS at home and the 70-300IS at work. No doubt the L is a better lens but it's 3 times as expensive and you need TCs to get as much reach.

The 70-300IS is a fine lens, almost as fast (mine changes to 4.5 at 85mm, 5 at 135mm and 5.6 at around 250), and has IS. The lost of 1/3 of a stop from 85-135 and 2/3 from 135-200 isn't that big a deal and you can often make it up with a little higher ISO, a little push processing, or a little lower shutter speed using the IS.

I think IS is just way too valuable to give up, now that the upgraded 75-300IS (the 70-300IS) focuses faster and has improved IQ. Yes, it's not as well built, it's not as smooth and it's a bit more flare-prone, but it's still a good lens and IS is great!

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

adam c said:

Interesting - I thought the 70-200 had the stronger following.
Perhaps the 70-300 fans just shout louder!

Thanks to the responses received so far. I might try to borrow /
hire both lenses for a day or two, or buy both and return one...

Click to expand...

If you're going to hire or borrow one make sure it's either a fixed one or a newer one.
From Canon site concerning the portrait issue.

Affected Products:

This phenomenon affects all EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lenses with a “0” or “1” in the third digit of the (8 digit) serial number. Products that have a third digit of “2” or higher in their serial number are not affected.

n/t

Yet more votes for the 70-300!

If you are happy with the 17-85 IS, you will be more than happy with the 70-300 IS. I have both, plus the 50 f1.8 all on a 20D, so same as you.

The 70-300 is an excellent lens for the price. I think it is sharper and optically better than the 17-85, if not as well made. I also now have the 100-400 L, and whilst that is a better lens, I have decided to keep the 70-300 as well due to its smaller size and less 'eye-catching' appearance. I only bought the 100-400 because I wanted the extra reach, not due to any lack of satisfaction with the 70-300.

Here are a some samples of the 70-300 on a very gloomy December day, no sharpening or PP applied:







--
http://www.aviationuk.fotopic.net

I have the same lenses as you for my 20D as well and would like to add a zoom lens. I have read so many amazing things about the 20-200/2.8 IS lens but I cannot justify the cost right now. Like you I am an amateur who takes my hobby seriously.

Anyway, this post is very interesting - it looks like the 70-300 IS non-DO is the winner and it is helping me to make up my mind in that direction too (which is making my bank account happy)...however as one of the early posters brought up, how would the sigma 28-300 fare in this situation? It would cover almost the same range as the 17-85 and the 70-300 without the need for switching lenses (losing a little on the wide end). Anyone have any thoughts on this? Or as I've read many times, having one lens cover as wide a range as 28-300 is never as good as having 2 or 3 lenses in that range.

DCS said:

Anyway, this post is very interesting - it looks like the 70-300 IS
non-DO is the winner and it is helping me to make up my mind in
that direction too (which is making my bank account
happy)...however as one of the early posters brought up, how would
the sigma 28-300 fare in this situation?

Click to expand...

Lower image quality and no IS.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Lee Jay said:

Lee Jay said:

Anyway, this post is very interesting - it looks like the 70-300 IS
non-DO is the winner and it is helping me to make up my mind in
that direction too (which is making my bank account
happy)...however as one of the early posters brought up, how would
the sigma 28-300 fare in this situation?

Click to expand...

Lower image quality and no IS.

Click to expand...

Fair enough...I guess one cannot expect too much from a lens covering that range for $500 (Canadian). I'm heading to Florida for vacation in 3 weeks and have been deliberating this zoom lens issue for months now. Now that a trip is planned, I feel like I should make a decision so that I can take my new toy with me. I'll be in Orlando and in Sanibel and I have previously visiited some of the wildlife sanctuaries in Sanibel - I really wished I had a long lens with me then - this may be my second chance.

I have the 350D, the 17-85 IS, the 70-200 F4L, and a 50mm 1.8. For all-around shooting, the combo of these three are great. I can't say enough good things about the F4L, but the thing I love most is it's color rendition even in lower light. If you were to make the "wrong" choice and go against everyone's votes for the 70-300 IS, I think you'd still be quite happy.

The only thing I wish I had was a full 2.8 aperture and IS on the short and long zooms. The only time I really need it is for anything indoors with lots of motion, like my nephew's 5th birthday party or a cousin's karate tournament. I'd use flash, but I like to shoot a lot of frames, and I don't want to annoy everyone. I'd bump the ISO way up, but if I have my choice I try to shoot at ISO 200 or 400. I'm socking away $50 a week towards 2.8 and IS, but in the meantime I love the combo of the 17-85 IS and the 70-200 F4L.

Good luck,
jb

--

--Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population.
--Albert Einstein

I really expected more people to support the 70-200 F4 and a day or two ago got very, very close to ordering one. Now I'm getting quite close to ordering a 70-300IS

It was 7:0 when I started the post; 7:1 by the time I hit "post"!

Jason said:

If you were to make the
"wrong" choice and go against everyone's votes for the 70-300 IS, I
think you'd still be quite happy.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right. I got very, very close to ordering this lens. Still might, but the 70-300 is also now looking very appealing!

Jason198448 said:

The only thing I wish I had was a full 2.8 aperture and IS on the
short and long zooms.

Click to expand...

If I could justify those, I would probably get the 70-200 2.8 IS, but even then, the size and weight are a serious consideration.