70-200 f4 vs 70-300 IS

[michaelb]

I was just reading the 70-200 f4 post and I figured it was a good time to see what people's opinions are on the relative merits of these two lenses.

I am drawn to the 70-300 IS by the focal length and IS - i don't use a tripod unless I have to. Most of my shots are outdoors - landscape, flowers, animals, etc.

But this is my main concern: How does the IQ of the 70-300 compare to the 70-200 f4 L (in terms of sharpness, color, contrast)? Is the IQ of the 70-200 that much better? Better enough to give up 100mm of focal length and IS? (I know I could get a teleconverter for the 70-200, but this adds to the cost and hassle.)

The advice given on this forum tends to be excellent; thanks up front for any suggestions you may have.


Recent shot with 50mm 1.8 (I really enjoy this lens):

"Just Hatched"

[aparmley]

Pete and I were just discussing this exact same situation. . . if you had to choose between these two which way would you go . . .

Through IE [read: "on paper" we a need a more modern term for that don't we. plus PBASE studies] the two are close enough IQ wise to make you seriously consider what would be more useful for your photography, the L and constant F4, or the IS and another 100mm?

Pete will probably chime in here and I'll let him share his experiences with you. . .

All I can say is that it would be a tough call - I'd lean towards the 70-300 IS over the 70-200 F4 L if Canon implemented a fix for the portrait orientation softness issues. . .

very nice image BTW

[pagnamenta]

It really depends what you are using the lens for. Both have very similiar image quality, but both have their strenghts. If you need to shoot low light, then the 70-200 f4 would win. If you are shooting outside in full light, then maybe the you want the extra 100mm. It really depends what you need the lens for.

[Bluedog]

The 70-200 f/4L is a tuff lens to beat for the price. Most copies I've seen are sharp wide open and color & contrast is outstanding. One day I might part with it for the f/2.8L IS but for now its a keeper.

Took this back in April at f/4.

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/58462479.jpg

[Vich]

Both have very similiar image quality, ... I've been looking for MTF charts or direct comparison review. The 70-200 f4.0 would be a tough one to beat. Do you know of a comparison?

Tony and Michael, nice flower shots!

[24Peter]

I'm sure other people who have used both lenses have a different opinion but for me, useability-wise the 70-300 IS wins. For sheer image quality the 70-200 F4 L wins. As long as you can avoid the portrait orientation issue on the 70-300 IS (though at this point I'm not clear that you can) it's a great all around lens. I've been able to handhold 300mm at 1/60th with excellent results b/c of the IS. It's also a smaller and lighter lens. The 70-200 on the other hand, has a well deserved reputation as a super sharp zoom lens but you're limited by its relative slowness (F4 isn't fast at all for natural light shooting.) I returned the 70-300 b/c of the portrait orientation issue and am happy with the 70-200 for my kind of shooting. But it's definitely a tougher lens to use (less forgiving like all non-IS telephoto zooms) than the 70-300. Try both and see what suits you best.

[some guy]

The portrait resolution issue IMHO is typical of making a mountain out of a molehill. Go to bobatkins.com, he did a comparo b/t these two lenses I think. I like the F4L alot and it's been in my target scope for my next tele. But after sampling IS and able to reach 300mm, I'm having doubts. To my eyes, the IQ are similar. Difficult to tell. the 70-300IS will net you 3-stops! At 200mm, the F4L is only 2/3 stop better than the 70-300IS (requires f5.0).
If you need the reach and shoot under poor lighting, the IS can help. Unlike the older model that it replaces, the 300mm end is fairly sharp too. Tough call really.

[ReF]

eh, tough call. i used the 70-200 f4 for about half a year and it's an excellent lens. it's not f2.8 but it's still capable of producing nice bokeh. it's also as sharp at f4 as the f2.8 version at f4. the sample images i've seen of the 70-300 show that it's right up there in image quality as well. here's how i look at things: if you are going to be shooting subjects that move, where the IS will do you no good, then the f4 is the obvious choice as that 1 stop means double the shutter speed. if you will be using the lens mostly at 300mm or shoot more subjects that don't require fast SS or can be frozen with flash, then get the 70-300 IS. the 70-200 f4 + 1.4x TC is IMO no better than the IS lens, not to mention a more limited range at a given time (70-200 OR 98-280), it cost more and is slow putting on and taking off the TC.

although my shooting style is likely very different from yours, here are some personal experiences for what it's worth:
i find i shoot an equal amount of moving subjects and still subjects in the tele range, and much more often in iffy light conditions than on bright days. that means half my subjects require fast shutter speeds. so in my case i found i needed the larger aperture and would have to live with carrying a tripod around. i know that at the end of the day i'll be kicking myself if i missed some great shots cuz i was using a slower lens to save the hassle of lugging a tripod around. on the other hand i often don't like the idea of bringing a bulky tripod around but i never give it a second thought after the shooting's done.





The portrait resolution issue IMHO is typical of making a mountain out of a molehill.

don't know about that one. this is a pretty small board and several members have already experienced the problem first hand.

[michaelb]

The portrait resolution issue IMHO is typical of making a mountain out of a molehill. Go to bobatkins.com, he did a comparo b/t these two lenses I think. I like the F4L alot and it's been in my target scope for my next tele. But after sampling IS and able to reach 300mm, I'm having doubts. To my eyes, the IQ are similar. Difficult to tell. the 70-300IS will net you 3-stops! At 200mm, the F4L is only 2/3 stop better than the 70-300IS (requires f5.0).
If you need the reach and shoot under poor lighting, the IS can help. Unlike the older model that it replaces, the 300mm end is fairly sharp too. Tough call really.


Appreciate all the input. I have heard that Canon will be offering a fix for the "portrait issue" and this is one of the reasons I have been taking my time on this decision. I have heard some say this is a real issue and some say it is not such a big deal. I definitely would like the build quality of the 70-200 and the constant f4, but most of my shooting is done handheld and I really think I want the extra range of the 300. It really is a tough decision.

[michaelb]

eh, tough call......if you are going to be shooting subjects that move, where the IS will do you no good, then the f4 is the obvious choice as that 1 stop means double the shutter speed. if you will be using the lens mostly at 300mm or shoot more subjects that subjects that don't require fast SS or can be frozen with flash, then get the 70-300 IS. the 70-200 f4 + 1.4x TC is IMO no better than the IS lens, not to mention a more limited range at a given time (70-200 OR 98-280), it cost more and is slow putting on and taking off the TC. .....
i find i shoot an equal amount of moving subjects and still subjects in the tele range, and much more often in iffy light conditions than on bright days. that means half my subjects require fast shutter speeds. so in my case i found i needed the larger aperture and would have to live with carrying a tripod around.

Some really good food for thought here - I don't shoot many fast moving objects, at least I have not up to this point. I don't think I need the constant f4 and you make a good point about the TC liminting the range and it reduces the available light.

Perhaps I should go with the 70-300 for now...I can always sell it on FM in the future and get the 70-200 f4 instead. But do I wait it out a little longer to see if Canon come out with a fix for the "portrait issue" or just deal with this potential limitation?

BTW....Bluedog - That is a beautiful flower shot - I'm envious!

[ReF]

Some really good food for thought here - I don't shoot many fast moving objects, at least I have not up to this point. I don't think I need the constant f4 and you make a good point about the TC liminting the range and it reduces the available light.

i didn't think about it til i had to get back to 70mm in a hurry.
juggling the lens + camera + TC + front and rear caps with two hands is no fun either, especially when rushing to get the shot.

Perhaps I should go with the 70-300 for now...I can always sell it on FM in the future and get the 70-200 f4 instead

one of the big advantages of a widely used system: huge used equipment market! good resale value too. i took a big hit selling the tamron 28-75 but only minimal losses selling the canon stuff. actually made $75 on one of my sales!

But do I wait it out a little longer to see if Canon come out with a fix for the "portrait issue" or just deal with this potential limitation?


if your local retailer doesn't over charge then testing samples yourself would be faster. i think pete might have more info on whether or not they are issuing fixes and such

[Vich]

I agree with Ref in that more light is needed for moving objects at tele, but not that IS does not good. Whether the objects move or not, camera shake is still evident at 200mm. A faster shutter will reduce the effect on your image but nullifying the shake in the first place is always better.

If you loose 3/4 stop in light but "gain 3 stops" as related to camera shake, and your subjects are still, then I think you'll get better results with IS.

Same goes for a moving object if your light at f5.0 is adequate for capturing the motion (like 1/125 for modest motion such as walking or a duck coasting over the water).

I really (really) wonder about this smallish lens being able to match IQ, in all the respects of IQ, with the 70-200 f4.0. There's a quality about the f4.0 lens that we normally only see in primes, and the better primes at that.

Oh, regarding the Portriat mode issue, one could just take the photo in landscape and crop. I've heard it's only an issue at long tele - is that true? If so, then it is fairly limited in scope.

[24Peter]

Here's an example of the portrait issue on the 70-300 IS - notice how the center is relatively sharp but the top and bottom of the image are a mess (shot was at 1/250th F8 280mm) (As Vich points out the problem is only noticeable above 200mm):
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/upload/IMG_1539.JPG

Canon's Service Center in Irvine California tested the lens and acknowledged there was a problem with my lens and eventually many others, so it's real.

Now here's a shot in landscape orientation to judge overall image quality (no sharpening applied in post) (1/640th F 6.3 300mm):
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/birdbathparttres/IMG_9832.JPG
(from this gallery: http://imageevent.com/24peter/birdbathparttres - all shots were taken with 70-300 IS)

Here are a couple of galleries where I used the 70-300 IS extensively (outdoor shots): http://imageevent.com/24peter/lorenafinato
http://imageevent.com/24peter/christinamitropoulou
It's a tougher to see the portrait issue due to the nature of the photos (and subjects :) ) but it's there (check the EXIF data to find shots take above 200mm)

Here shots #10-30 were all taken with the 70-200 F4 L. http://imageevent.com/24peter/stevedarmis Select an image and click on "original" under image size to see IQ. One of my favs (1/1600th F 4.5 200mm) http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/stevedarmis/IMG_7934.JPG
Comparison with Canon 85 1.8 from same shoot (1/4000th F 2.5 85mm) (pardon the blown highlights - I'm still learning :o) http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/stevedarmis/IMG_7816.JPG

More 70-200 F4L shots - #30-44 For comparision, more 85 1.8 shots #45 - 55. http://imageevent.com/24peter/vanessaschafer

[NewTekBuzz]

I have a Canon 75-300 thats about 10 yrs old, I got it new and it has REAL low miles!! I hope they have made great improvments to this lens... all the way open (300mm) on a tripod the IQ is crap, its like your looking through a screen door!!

[some guy]

From that picture I can't tell. Do you mean that the top of the tree is bent? It's sharp to me at least to me. Not pixel peeping of course.

If anyone is not happy with the 70-300IS due to the portrait issue, hey sell it to me since it's such problematic lens. ;)

If 200mm is all you need for max reach then for sure get the F4L. And I agree juggling with a TC, lens and caps ain't fun if u're in a hurry. I guess you can always leave it on the whole time.

[Vich]

From that picture I can't tell. Do you mean that the top of the tree is bent? It's sharp to me at least to me. Not pixel peeping of course.

If anyone is not happy with the 70-300IS due to the portrait issue, hey sell it to me since it's such problematic lens. ;)

If 200mm is all you need for max reach then for sure get the F4L. And I agree juggling with a TC, lens and caps ain't fun if u're in a hurry. I guess you can always leave it on the whole time.
Position the mouse on the lower right corner until an orange square appears, then click that. It will show the whole image. The birds and tree at the top and bottom are VERY blurry. It's such a big tree it could be a DOF issue, but it doesn't look to be. I would be very unhappy with these results - looks more like a P&S result! However; the landscape version is OK.

Canon has a good reputation for fixing these issues and will likely just replace his whole lens when they get it figured out. Alternatively, they'll offer him full credit or refund. I don't think there's much risk as long as Canon admits to it.

It sure looks like a cheap path to a usually-good 300mm IS lens.


Pholosophy warning: However; I've noticed that I don't care too much about capturing every image possible. I just don't have the disk space and most people will never want to see it all, much less any of it - unless it's my kid in which case I can't take enough.

So; I want to pursue it as an art. If I only got 5 captures but they all made me proud to view, and I could remember taking them 3 years later, I'll take that over getting 1000 OK captures.

So, I'll take the 70-200 f4.0. For me, IS is only good if it's attached to a near-perfect lens. It will allow for that special capture the day my composition and photography skills arrive (hey BH, where's that shipment!!!:D )

[some guy]

Now I see it. Yeah it does look weird. So how much do you want for that piece of crap then. ;)

[24Peter]

Now I see it. Yeah it does look weird. So how much do you want for that piece of crap then. ;)
$610 - that's what Canon paid me in refund at least. ;)

[ReF]

i only looked at the top portion of the image before i closed it cuz it told me enough. some parts of the tree are very sharp but the birdies at top are smearing!

at tele, but not that IS does not good. Whether the objects move or not, camera shake is still evident at 200mm.

true, IS is good to have even if it's just as an extra measure. i noticed at 640mm (after crop factor) that 1/640 isn't really enough to guarantee a shake free image. even when tripod mounted (not locked down) pictures taken at 1/640 looked fine on their own, but weren't as sharp as when shot at 1/800 (i was doing tests to familiarize myself with the lens and shooting limits). at 896mm even when tripod mounted and locked down there is blur if one is not careful. so given that people have differing levels of hand steadiness and other factors, yeah, i agree that IS is good to have.

Oh, regarding the Portriat mode issue, one could just take the photo in landscape and crop. I've heard it's only an issue at long tele - is that true? If so, then it is fairly limited in scope.

ouch, that's a big chunk of pixels and print size lost. shouldn't have to put up with that kind of stuff on a $600+ lens purchase.

[JMWallace]

Wow, i am impressed with the IQ of 70-300. With the extra focal length and IS, i could definately see popping for one of those for some nice outdoors stuff. With the 30D's 1.6 crop, that is over a 1/4 mile reach! I have been considering the 70-200 f/4, but for outdoor stuff that is really a tough choice. The problem I have, is that it appears for lower light indoor shooting at some distance where a flash is not acceptable/allowed or appropriate there is only one true option...the 70-200 f/2.8 (IS if the budget allows - DAMN you Don). My 3 yr daughter just started gymnastics and I just don't feel a flash is a good idea...may not be allowed. Am i missing any options here?? (besides a prime)

[24Peter]

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922&keycode=2112&id=28468
Well there you go - get a lens with a serial # with a 2 or higher as the third digit.

[aparmley]

Wow, i am impressed with the IQ of 70-300. With the extra focal length and IS, i could definately see popping for one of those for some nice outdoors stuff. With the 30D's 1.6 crop, that is over a 1/4 mile reach! I have been considering the 70-200 f/4, but for outdoor stuff that is really a tough choice. The problem I have, is that it appears for lower light indoor shooting at some distance where a flash is not acceptable/allowed or appropriate there is only one true option...the 70-200 f/2.8 (IS if the budget allows - DAMN you Don). My 3 yr daughter just started gymnastics and I just don't feel a flash is a good idea...may not be allowed. Am i missing any options here?? (besides a prime)

I used to spend a lot of time over on the sports boards at FM - People would shoot gymnastics at ISO 1600-3200 with their 20Ds and a 300mm f2.8 wide open and still have problems with not being able to get enough reach or high enough shutter speeds. Two things to consider here - how close you can get and how well the venues are lit.

300mm - 1/4 mile of reach - that seems like quite a bit. I still couldn't come near filling a frame with a cardinal on a bird feeder from 20 feet at 300mm.


Pete thanks for that link! Good to see - now give a little time for inventories to flush out. . . ;)

[JMWallace]

:eek: 300mm - 1/4 mile of reach - that seems like quite a bit. I still couldn't come near filling a frame with a cardinal on a bird feeder from 20 feet at 300mm.

I believe my train of thought temporarily left the station there. That is what I get for getting 2 hours of sleep and posting on here when I should be working. I mistakenly convertered for Meters...not mm. Hey, what do you expect...I am a banker, not a mearsure-ologist person.

It's to bad you quoted me, other wise I could go back and edit it and make YOU look crazy.:eek:

[snap]

I have both the 70-200 2.8L IS and the 70-300 IS. IQ is very, very close. I like the speed of the 2.8 and it has great bokeh, and it is really fun to use. It is great for action shots. The lense is very heavy to lug around all day. I like the reach of the 70-300 IS, and I really prefer it for travel. It packs ligher, is easier to carry around all day, and is not so "obvious" if you are after candid portrait shots.

By the way, Canon has announced information about the serial numbers of 70-300 IS lenses that are likely to exhibit the "portrait" problem.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922&keycode=2112&id=28468

[aparmley]

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922&keycode=2112&id=28468
Well there you go - get a lens with a serial # with a 2 or higher as the third digit.


I suppose that post wasn't a give away :rolleyes:

[24Peter]

I suppose that post wasn't a give away :rolleyes:
Refering to snapster? Cut him some slack - he's from Chico, CA

[ReF]

Wow, i am impressed with the IQ of 70-300. With the extra focal length and IS, i could definately see popping for one of those for some nice outdoors stuff. With the 30D's 1.6 crop, that is over a 1/4 mile reach! I have been considering the 70-200 f/4, but for outdoor stuff that is really a tough choice. The problem I have, is that it appears for lower light indoor shooting at some distance where a flash is not acceptable/allowed or appropriate there is only one true option...the 70-200 f/2.8 (IS if the budget allows - DAMN you Don). My 3 yr daughter just started gymnastics and I just don't feel a flash is a good idea...may not be allowed. Am i missing any options here?? (besides a prime)

if you can get close enough i hear some people shoot gymnastics with a 135 f2 or 85 f1.8

[mediyoga]

Michael
Here is a flower on the 70-300 IS in my garden with my rebel xt. Hope its of some use
F9 , 1/640 , -2 EV, contast and saturation is high, ISO 400 @300mm
Krishna