glass dilemma - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/21/2007 08:47:27 PM · #1

ok, heres the scoop. I'm going out tomorrow to get a new long lens and the two I'm looking at there is only a small difference in price but I was just looking for some opinions from some "owners" so to speak. I'm looking at either the Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS or the Canon 70-200 F4L. I'm leaning toward the IS for the only reason it has had some great reviews and the IS of course, the only thing I'm not to fond of is the fact that the front element rotates but the only filter I mite put on it is a UV filter anyway but then again it is a little smaller and lighter than the L glass and has a little more reach to it also... Im prob going to be shooting mostly out doors like the usual plants, animals and cars etc...

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

-dave

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

02/21/2007 09:20:03 PM · #2

I own both. The 70-200 is a much better lense. Only time I ever found the other lense winning out was shooting in a dark hall from the upper balcony at 300mm. The IS was very handy.

02/21/2007 09:36:59 PM · #3

definitly go for the 70-200! amazing freaking sharpness out of that puppy. if you really want a sharp lens with IS id say save up for a little longer and grab the 70-200mm/4 IS. thats what im doing

02/21/2007 09:55:05 PM · #4

Originally posted by noisemaker:

definitly go for the 70-200! amazing freaking sharpness out of that puppy. if you really want a sharp lens with IS id say save up for a little longer and grab the 70-200mm/4 IS. thats what im doing

Yea I saw that 70-200 F4L IS but its another $555 more than the non IS L glass here :(

My main reason for leaning toward the IS models is that I find that 90% of my shots have been hand held... thus why I was leaning toward the 70-300 IS

-dave

02/21/2007 10:24:47 PM · #5

Originally posted by dknourek:

Originally posted by noisemaker:
definitly go for the 70-200! amazing freaking sharpness out of that puppy. if you really want a sharp lens with IS id say save up for a little longer and grab the 70-200mm/4 IS. thats what im doing

Yea I saw that 70-200 F4L IS but its another $555 more than the non IS L glass here :(

My main reason for leaning toward the IS models is that I find that 90% of my shots have been hand held... thus why I was leaning toward the 70-300 IS

-dave

yeah it definitly is a bit on the pricey side. but you get such amazing sharpness and clarity... OH and a nice big white lens with a red stripe and a big red capital L slapped on there!

02/21/2007 11:38:26 PM · #6

but would the 70-200L be that much sharper than the 70-300 IS lens? some of the reviews Ive read have them pretty close in quality.

-dave

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

02/21/2007 11:42:50 PM · #7

Originally posted by dknourek:

but would the 70-200L be that much sharper than the 70-300 IS lens? some of the reviews Ive read have them pretty close in quality.

-dave

overall they would look similar. but from what ive heard from others and my own reading ive found that the 70-200mm has alot better corner sharpness rather then just center sharpness

ExcaliburVT

Canon EOS-30D

02/22/2007 12:20:33 AM · #8

I just got my 70-300 IS in the mail today and I must say that I'm EXTREMELY impressed and love it. Now, I must say that I have never used the 70-200L as a way of comparing, but just simply playing with the IS on my new lens I find that it is really the difference between getting blurry pictures in almost every light situation.

I realize that the L lens will be significantly sharper, but for my purposes I will almost ALWAYS be hand holding my camera, and generally taking pictures while hiking or out and about. For me I think the IS is more important than the sharpness, but since the L glass has a much faster aperture it could be said that the IS will be needed less since you should be able to take pictures with a faster shutter.

bfox2

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/22/2007 12:42:05 AM · #9

I dunno, I think I'd go with the IS. You get a little extra reach, good sharpness if not quite equivalent, and some extra hand-hold-ability. Unless you really mess it up you can always just sharpen a little extra in PS.

splidge

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

02/22/2007 05:27:43 AM · #10

I'm having a similar dilemma although I doubt I'll be buying for another few weeks.

Whilst I'm sure the 70-200 f/4L is probably a bit sharper and is certainly more solidly built, the fact is that it's more money (around here anyway) for something with less range and without IS - and it's only one stop faster at the long end (at 200mm it's F/5 vs. F/4 so not even that).

Looking at the photozone.de results for the 70-300 it looks quite promising with good consistency is the borders. I'm not sure how much I trust photozone.de's results comparing the F/4L to the F/4L IS though. The fredmiranda reviews for the 70-300 are also quite promising; seems there was a known problem shooting portrait images in the past but they have fixed that now.

I think as much as anything it boils down to whether you need the solid build quality of the L lenses. The 70-300 doesn't look to me like the kind of lens I would like to be using day in day out for a living. But since this is just a hobby for me I'm less concerned about that, so I'm leaning towards the (not insignificant) 100mm of extra reach and IS.

splidge

goc

Apple iPhone 4

02/22/2007 06:13:32 AM · #11

i had the same dilemma, and i went with 70-200 F4 ,reasons :

- better build
- internal focusing
- fixed length (important to me)
- sharpness
- colors !
- constant F4
- not heavy (not that 70-300 is)
- no rotating elements

LindaLee

Canon EOS-40D

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

02/22/2007 06:23:04 AM · #12

Check this THREAD for more info.

Message edited by author 2007-02-22 06:23:13.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

02/22/2007 06:40:52 AM · #13

Background: I have the 70-300 IS and plan to get the 70-200 2.8 IS for my next lens. I also own the 100-400 and the 75-300.

The 100-400 is my favorite lens, hands down. But its huge, noticeable and bulky. It was very awkward to go street shooting and not be stared at. I thought about the 70-200 but it is still large, white, and heavy - not very easy to be, well, stealthy.

Which lens you buy is largely dependent on what you will be shooting. The 100-400 works great for anything as long as the light is really bright. I would assume the same would hold true of the 70-200 F4. The 70-300 also needs light but, being a lot lighter, is easier to hand hold for longer periods of time.

If you have a REALLY tight budget and want a long zoom, you can buy the 75-300, but I wouldn't really recommend it. One of the third parties must be better.

In terms of sharpness, the 100-400 wins and I would assume the 70-200 would be as sharp. But, the 70-300 isn't a slouch there either. The difference is most noticeable at 100% but, I honestly don't print anything at 100%. The less you crop and enlarge, the less noticeable the difference. Well, except for (I don't know what else to call it) the clarity. I can usually (but not always) tell when looking at 2 shots side by side, which image is from which lens. I think it may be the bokeh. My husband can also tell which surprises me as he doesn't really care all that much.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/22/2007 10:45:26 AM · #14

Thanks for all the replies, I really appreciate it.

I haven't made up my mind yet as its still caught in turmoil as I like the idea of a little extra reach on the 70-300IS and the IS of course but I also like the resistance to dust and moisture in the 70-200 f4L but not crazy about the length, weight and carrying around this big white lens, as I usually like to keep from drawing attention to myself and the fact that the L glass is $70 more than the other one...

-dave

*edit* I mite end up trying to see if I can rent the L glass and maby see if it will work for me that way...

Message edited by author 2007-02-22 10:46:31.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

02/22/2007 06:47:30 PM · #15

Originally posted by dknourek:

in the 70-200 f4L but not crazy about the length, weight and carrying around this big white lens

The 70-200F4L isn't heavy at all. While I don't have both in front of me, the length is comparable between it and the other one you are thinking of and it is actually thinner. Dahkota is talking bout the 70-200 2.8, that is pretty heavy lense.

Yes the white color sucks.

Message edited by author 2007-02-22 18:48:18.

02/22/2007 09:22:38 PM · #16

Well I did manage to find a dealer in town that is willing to rent out a 70-200 F4L to me for the weekend :) yay Im hopefully going to pick it up tomorrow.

Also Ill post these two url's in the other recent canon L glass thread as I think they are great comparisons real world like between these two lenses:

test one side by side comparisons

test two another great comparison (roll mouse over the image to see the difference between the lenses for this one) I really like this one as you can change the zoom and F stop to see the differences...

-dave