pros and cons 70-200 f/4 L IS vs 70-300 f/4-f/5.6

Started Jun 25, 2011 | Discussions thread
forbaz Contributing Member • Posts: 510
Re: Only you can decde

Pointandshootg9 wrote:


I should clarify that I meant the 70-200 f/4.0 L IS vs the 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 non L lens.

I had the 70-300. It was a decent lens, bought it second hand. The reach was good - I used to use it on a 40D.

I then had the opportunity to pick up a 70-200 F4 L IS second hand in good condition for a good price. So I offloaded the 70-300 for $25 more than what I paid for it.

Now shooting on 5d2, with the 40d as a (seldom used) backup.

The 70-200 is noticeably sharper wide open (also have the 70-200L F2.8 L IS II, which are pretty close to each other). It is also a stop quicker at the long end, and has constant max aperture. As you mention it is weather sealed. The AF speed is likely quicker, (not that the 70-300 was a slouch), didn't compare.

It may only be 200mm at the long end, but I've never found that a problem given the cropping room you've got with the 5d2. Really depends what you're shooting I guess - ultimately you may want the extra 100m, plus the cropping room, but you give up the +ves above.

Obviously there is a reasonable difference in price between them.

-- hide signature --
 forbaz's gear list:forbaz's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow