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

[TheWengler]

Don't make 2 threads for 1 topic.

I would rather have the 70-200. If you really needed more reach you could add a 1.4x TC. It's doubtful you'd be doing much shooting indoors with either of the lenses. You'd probably want a large aperture lens for indoors and portraits. Maybe something like a 50mm or 85mm prime.

[Rhys]

I have the 70-300 IS. The IS can go bananas at times. In general I find I switch it off mostly as it's not that good. The 70-200 is better optically. I would rather the 70-200 than the 70-300, as a 70-300 owner. If you can hold off in order to get the 70-200 f4 IS, even better.

[AdamW]

I also have the 70-300. I think it's a great lens. I've never used the 70-200, so I can't compare them. However, my experience has been different than Rhys's. I find the IS in the 70-300 to work really well and to be extremely helpful. I've never used the lens indoors in low light, but for me the IS is especially useful at the longer end, where my less-than-steady hands really start to show.

[Rhys]

I also have the 70-300. I think it's a great lens. I've never used the 70-200, so I can't compare them. However, my experience has been different than Rhys's. I find the IS in the 70-300 to work really well and to be extremely helpful. I've never used the lens indoors in low light, but for me the IS is especially useful at the longer end, where my less-than-steady hands really start to show.

I can recall one bizarre experience. I put the lens on the camera, switched the camera on and heard a noise from the lens. I looked through the viewfinder to see the image jumping up and down rapidly. The IS was over-compensating for virtually no movement. It was a bit surreal. After that I have noticed the IS is not that great.

[Spookonthe8ball]

I have no experience with the 70-200, but I do have the 70-300IS. I like this lens just fine and have had no problems with it. If I was to upgrade, it would be to a 400mm for even longer reach. The 70-300 IS is good for outside shooting in good light. If I were to do a lot of arena indoor shots the 2.8 70-200 might be the way to go. With your budget, I would buy the 70-300IS. Nice bokeh on close shots and reasonably fast for any action you might come across givin good light.
Spook

[DonSchap]

I suggest you guys need to analyze what the basic differences are between the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 and the 70-200mm f/4 just at the grassroots:

• (+) 70-200 -- f/4 base aperture throughout the focal length. That's immportant.
• (+) 70-200 -- faster time to focus ... with action shots, that's important.
• (+) 70-200 -- does not change outer dimensions, as you zoom.
• (+) 70-200 -- 46" minimum focus distance
• (+) 70-200 -- is effectively weather-sealed.

The 70-200 is just a better build of a lens.

• (+) 70-300 offers 100mm more focal length.
• (-) Base aperture varies fron f/4 to f/5.6 as you zoom in
• (-) It is slower to focus. (-) The lens actually changes outer dimensions as you zoom. That can be tricky with a flash, as it can cast a shadow. You definitely will need a flash indoors, if you use it there.
• (-) It has a five foot minimum focus distance.
• (-) Forget fighting weather ... don't use it the rain.

If you need to get to roughly 300mm for a shot, you can add the 1.4x teleconverter to the 70-200mm and get effectively the dark shot you would with the 70-300mm.

When you add IS into equation ... then the choice is 70-200mm f/4 w/ IS. Simple, eh?

[Rhys]

Don, I agree.

The difference between a 200mm lens and a 300mm lens is not that great optically.

There's more difference between a 14mm and a 17mm lens than between a 200 and a 300.

Having bought the 70-300, I regret not buying the 70-200. I could easily have afforded the IS version. I just went cheap and got the 70-300 which I regret now. Still, I can always sell it and buy the 70-200 f4IS. I might do that after the wedding I've been asked to shoot in June.

[Honest Gaza]

I also have the 70-300. I think it's a great lens. I've never used the 70-200, so I can't compare them. However, my experience has been different than Rhys's. I find the IS in the 70-300 to work really well and to be extremely helpful. I've never used the lens indoors in low light, but for me the IS is especially useful at the longer end, where my less-than-steady hands really start to show.

No problems with the IS in my 70-300mm either

[cwphoto]

There's more difference between a 14mm and a 17mm lens than between a 200 and a 300.

The maths says otherwise.