Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM vs. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

[bakerbrand]

(***This post is a longer one, I apologize for that so I will understand if you don't want to read it all)
Hello everyone,

I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I'm still going to go ahead and ask what peoples opinions are.

Well for a while now I have really been wanting to get more serious in photography. Although I do have a major budget which probably is not good but still. The work that I really want to pursue is Equine, Wildlife, Pet and perhaps Portrait (If portrait mostly like people with there animals or maybe like Senior Photo's for friends. But Equine photog is the main work I will pursue.

I have decided that I'm going to go with the Canon EOS Digital Rebel Xti (Body Only) for the fact that it is a very great entry level DSLR and for the reason it has the dust removal technology. There are many other reasons but this is what I have decided on. Now comes the lens.

Because the main subject of shooting will be equine, I want a good telephoto. Now the budget for a first lens is only about $500-600 which I know is not much but like I said I'm on a tight one. The lens I narrowed down too were the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I went to my local professional photo store (http://vantuil.com/) and talked to one of the seasoned photographers there. He loves both the lenses and honestly thought I should go with the 70-300. The points he made sounded very legit and a few I can remember is that 1) When shooting horse's there may be that time when you will need that extra 100mm or reach to get the shot you need. 2) I believe he said that the IS may really come in handy sometime especially if your shooting indoors with lowlight if your not able to use your flash. Now there were more but those were two that I could remember. He also use to shoot equine and there were times when he really would have like both when he didn't have them.

Now I know the 70-200 is a amazing piece of glass but I think I really want to go with the 70-300, but I want to hear what some other people have to say.
Ok well thanks so much guys, I appreciate it

[cwphoto]

70-200/4 IMO, if only for the superior AF performance.

If you find you need more length than grab a 1.4x TC down the track.

[cdifoto]

70-200/4 IMO, if only for the superior AF performance.

If you find you need more length than grab a 1.4x TC down the track.

Agreed. L uses ring USM. Non-L uses micro.

[cdr116]

Agreed. L uses ring USM. Non-L uses micro.

What is the difference between ring and micro USM?

[cwphoto]

What is the difference between ring and micro USM?

Ring is better. Different AF technologies.

[cdr116]

I know ring is better but what are the physical differences? Like in the build of them, what makes ring better?

[cdifoto]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=15260787

http://www.photoscene.com/sw/tour/inside.htm (http://kwc.org/blog/archives/2005/2005-04-19.canon_usm.html)

[michaelb]

70-200/4 IMO, if only for the superior AF performance.

If you find you need more length than grab a 1.4x TC down the track.

I third that recommendation. The 70-200 f/4 is incredibly fast focusing, which will be mandatory for your use. It will be perfect for outdoor shots.

However, if your shooting indoors, then what you really need is the beast - the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I don't think that you would get fast enough shutter speeds with the 70-200 f/4 indoors.
Depending upon how close you can get, for indoors, you also might want to consider the 85mm f/1.8 - it runs around $300. Perhaps the 70-200 f/4 and the 85mm f/1.8 would be a good combo for you.

[24Peter]

I know, I know, I'm repeating myself :o :

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=283773&postcount=27

[cdr116]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=15260787

http://www.photoscene.com/sw/tour/inside.htm (http://kwc.org/blog/archives/2005/2005-04-19.canon_usm.html)

Thank you for those links cdi.
Helped a lot :)

[Vich]

Looks a lot like this thread (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37094).

The non-IS version of the 70-200 f4L is nearly identically priced with 70-300.

You'll probably be really happy with either for general use, but the excellent AF and dust sealed qualities of the L might make it more satisfying. If you do go used, you'll skip sales tax, possibly skip shipping (for a local purchase), and likely be able to recoup all your money on resale if you decide you really wanted IS and the extra 100mm.

Still; it's hard to go wrong with those two choices. They're both really good lenses - just different strengths. The L is less feature-rich but superior AF. The 70-300 longer. Both have good IQ - the L might be just a tad better (I've never compared, but I'm stoked with the IQ on my L).

[Scott M]

I've owned the 70-300 IS for a couple of years, and recently upgraded to the 70-200 f/4L IS, which is very similar to the non-IS version (except for the image stabilization, of course :) ). You can easily add a 1.4x teleconverter to the 70-200 to gain nearly the same reach as the 70-300, and image quality and focusing speed/accuracy will be at least as good, if not better, than the 70-300 at maximum zoom. So, all you are really giving up with the non-IS 70-200L is the image stabilization.

What you gain, though, is better/sharper image quality, smoother and quicker focusing, better build quality, and no rotating front element (if you want to use a polarizing filter). Plus, you gain an extra f-stop -- unless you add the 1.4x teleconverter, where your minimum aperture will be an identical f/5.6 as the 70-300.

The 70-300 is a fine lens at its price if you want/need image stabilization, though. The IS version of the 70-200 is almost twice the price. I just found image quality a little soft at 300mm unless the lens was stopped down some.