Canon 75-300 IS vs. 70-200/4L - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/20/2004 10:25:40 PM · #1

Ok folks... my wife lost a bet and I get to go shopping! ;-b

I'm searching for a longer zoom for the Rebel. I've already got the kits lens, the 28-105, and the 50 f1.8. I need more range (mostly for wildlife/bird shots). I'm considering either the Canon 75-300 IS or the 70-200L f/4 (and maybe the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM). I could swing the Canon 70-200 F2.8, but I'm not yet willing to blow $1000 on one lens. I'm leaning toward the 75-300 for the extra reach and IS feature. Can anyone comment on the differences between these?

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

04/20/2004 10:31:49 PM · #2

Get the Canon 70-200mm f/4L, it's a fantastic lens and a real bargain when compared to some of the other comparable lenses out there. Although for bird photography you'd need more than a 200mm lens, for bigger animals it will be ok because of the 1.6x crop factor, but for birds you need more.

N

04/20/2004 10:32:42 PM · #3

Well, the 70-200 f/4L is optically far superior to the 75-300 lenses. The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is also very good. I would go with one of the 70-200â��s over the 75-300. The Canon is probably the best zoom lens I have ever used. The Sigma is pretty far up there too and gives an extra stop.

For wildlife/birds 200mm really isnâ��t enough and 300mm is borderline. I would look into something like the EF 100-400 IS or the Bigma or maybe the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX or the new Sigma 80-400 OS.

Greg

Message edited by author 2004-04-20 22:38:20.

04/20/2004 10:37:52 PM · #4

Thanks for the comments. I think the faster 70-200 lenses somewhat compensate for the lack of IS, but I'm a little hesitant to give up an extra 100mm while spending more money.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/20/2004 10:40:54 PM · #5

The EF 75-300 IS is probably the worst lens Canon makes optically. At least it is the worst one I have tried and I have tried a lot of them. It is pretty soft past 200mm and suffers a lot from CA. The Sigma 70-200 and Canon 70-200â��s are outstanding optically.

Greg

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

04/20/2004 10:42:00 PM · #6

The 100mm you are giving up is greatly offset by the difference in the better quality of the 70-200mm f/4.0L lens.

N

04/20/2004 10:49:55 PM · #7

I get the hint. Canon 70-200 is the front-runner. Are there any other lenses in that $300-600 range that might be better? Tamron, Sigma, etc.?

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/20/2004 10:55:38 PM · #8

Canon 200 mm f2.8 at 600 $ beats them all hands down:

04/20/2004 11:04:44 PM · #9

Good one Pitsa, though starting to get pricey. Maybe Ebay...

04/20/2004 11:08:29 PM · #10

You might be able to get a good deal on Ebay but it can be tough. I got my EF 200mm f/2.8L from B&H used for $475 in 9 condition. I really can't tell any difference between it and my 70-200mm f/4L IS on my old 1D, 10D or my current digital rebel body. You can probably tell a difference on a 1Ds but I haven't ever tried it.

Greg

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

04/20/2004 11:20:30 PM · #11

Originally posted by dadas115:

I really can't tell any difference...

While the lenses might be very close optically, I think the speed of the f2.8 might allow me to capture action shots a little easier. I took these Saturday with the 28-105...

Spork99

OM System OM-1

04/20/2004 11:21:58 PM · #12

If you are looking for reach, you can also get the 1.4x teleconverter for the 70-200

ellamay

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

04/20/2004 11:24:47 PM · #13

get the new canon --28mm- 300mm USM L that is brand new out.
Spned a little more the first time is my advice esp if you can. In the long run you wont have to upgrade, lose money and have a ton of extra lens., I already have 2 in that category.
I highly recommend the 100- 400mm canon IS ISM L
I use it for just about everything, but macros.
and it is great range for birds, IMO (and i like to shoot birds) a 200mm would not be long enough.

04/20/2004 11:27:33 PM · #14

Well if you want the speed, the SIgma 70-200 has the speed and the great versitility of being a zoom.

Greg

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dadas115:
I really can't tell any difference...

While the lenses might be very close optically, I think the speed of the f2.8 might allow me to capture action shots a little easier. I took these Saturday with the 28-105...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/20/2004 11:33:44 PM · #15

Ellamay- it'll take a much bigger bet before my wife allows me to spend more on a lens than the camera. I could go that route, but my next Challenge entry would be "Outside Looking In" if you know what I mean.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/21/2004 08:28:13 AM · #16

Originally posted by scalvert:

While the lenses might be very close optically, I think the speed of the f2.8 might allow me to capture action shots a little easier.

Only if you are going to be shooting wide-open in poor lighting conditions. If you're shooting your 2.8 lens at 4 (or higher) the majority of the time, then you might as well have gotten the f/4 lens and saved some coin. Outdoors, a fast lens isn't nearly as necessary.

That being said, I agree with everyone else, get the Canon 70-200/4L. It is a stellar lens. And... you can buy the 1.4X teleconverter down the road (as Spazmo99 suggested) and have a 100-280/5.6L. With this combo, you're no worse off in terms of maximum aperture when compared to the 75-300 (which varies from f/4-5.6) and the optical quality of the 70-200/4L really is better compared to the 75-300...

Message edited by author 2004-04-21 08:29:39.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/21/2004 09:17:44 AM · #17

OK- Canon 70-200/4L it is, and good suggestion, Smazmo99. Thanks to all for your help!

sn4psh07

Canon EOS-10D

04/21/2004 09:19:40 AM · #18

Sigma 70-200 + 1.4x + 2x
70-200 @ 2.8
100-280 @ 4
140-400 @ 5.6

Best deal by far!

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

04/21/2004 01:30:30 PM · #19

I f I were birding it'd be the 400 f/5.6L all the way.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

04/21/2004 01:34:15 PM · #20

Originally posted by sn4psh07:

Sigma 70-200 + 1.4x + 2x
70-200 @ 2.8
100-280 @ 4
140-400 @ 5.6

Best deal by far!

Yep, quite agree. If I had enough money for either a Canon 70-200/4L or a Sigma 70-200/2.8EX, I'd go for the Sigma..

If you ever want a 2x TC for the 70-200/4L, that's a horrible aperture you'd end up with.

grdSavant

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM

04/21/2004 02:05:30 PM · #21

Originally posted by scalvert:

I get the hint. Canon 70-200 is the front-runner. Are there any other lenses in that $300-600 range that might be better? Tamron, Sigma, etc.?

You said birds, so:

A used Sigma f/2.8 70-210mm, $400, the 82mm filter version. This is an awesome, all metal lens, which starts a person off with a great, bright, fast base lens (specs available from me on request). Add a Tamron SP 2x Teleconverter, $200. The Sigma lens remains auto-focus with this fine teleconverter, which means the combination has good light gathering capability. The used Sigma (note 210, not 200) may have to be sent to Sigma for a **FREE** upgrade, but that is great because they tune and clean it all up like new, too. (Of course, this is the combination I use :D) And, you can still slap on a Kenko Pro 300 3x Teleconverter for a quite usable 630mm f/8.0 lens, which is really nice (required) for birds. 620mm f/8 is the best I can afford for less than $$ a lot. With a lot of money in my pocket, I would like a Sigma the 50-500mm f/4-6.3 APO EX Hyperzoom, $940, with an occasional 1.4x teleconverter, or the Sigma 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 EX OS (Optical Stabilizer) Apo, $1200, also with a 1.4x teleconverter

Message edited by author 2004-04-21 14:11:05.

04/21/2004 02:20:43 PM · #22

I think I'll stick with EddyG on this one. The Sigma 70-200 is $160 more than the Canon, and I doubt that I'd get a 2x teleconverter. If I ever need that much reach, I'll be looking for a sf 300 or 400 lens. I'm getting a few more things off my wish list... a lens hood for the 28-105, a Sto-fen Omni-Bounce for the 420ex, and maybe adapters for my telescope. It's Christmas in April!

Two more questions for this panel of experts:

1. I want to protect this lens, but B&H doesn't seem to carry a 67mm Canon UV Filter. Given the high quality optics on the 70-200/4L, is the General brand UV filter OK? Assuming I only got one, would a General brand polarizer be preferable to the UV filter?

2. I've got a LowePro Nova 1 AW camera bag, which is a snug fit for the Rebel/28-105 lens, 50mm lens and 420ex flash. I'm thinking about a LowePro 2 or 3 AW to make room for the 70-200 lens. Can anybody comment on this or suggest a better alternative (under $60)?