View Full Version : L vs IS Zoom--as tough a choice as I think?

12-27-2004, 03:01 AM
Tough choice.
Is the 75-300IS really THAT bad? Is the 70-200L f4 really THAT much better?
Here's my conundrum...
I will be using the lens on a 300D, a comparatively light cam. The lens is for a lengthy globtrotting trip and will call my backpack home (=lighter is better). My big worry--I will NEVER be using a tripod or monopod. The lens is primarily for wildlife. I have never been able to shoot close up on a trip like this before and cannot decide if the extra 100mm would make or break the photo ops. That said, do you think the 70-200, hand held, fully zoomed would still produce consistenly better images than the 75-300IS? Thoughs on adding the 1.4x to it, or am I already in "shakey disaster" territory going hand held? Also, is the the 75-300 focus as painfully slow at 300mm as we are led to believe. I am an amature--think I'd be able to really tell the difference in speed?

I would like to stick to one of these lenses to take advantage of Canon's revate program (the bane of my existence). Today I pull the trigger on one of these 2 lenses. I highly value your opinions. What do you all think I should do?

Thanks much.

12-27-2004, 06:20 AM
I would go with the 70-200. The picture quality is VERY good. I have done some looking on PBase and done a search for the 75-300. The pictures are still very good, but they are slightly lacking something that I just can't put my finger on. The L lenses just seem to have a little extra something, You have to decided whether that extra something is worth it. My friend just made the same decision and went with the 70-200, he is very happy, and he hand holds it all of the time right now. You could always get the 1.4x tele converter to make the long end 280, without much image degredation.

12-27-2004, 07:56 AM
I just was on another board and happened to read a post that is applicable to your question. Here's the link. I've also pasted the text below.


<Start of pasted message>

I agree with Dan - if you read the reviews on this lens(75-300 IS USM) as I did, you might be scared off, but I went ahead and bought it anyway because I felt the total combination (range, portability, IS, and price) would make it a worthwhile lens to have in my bag.

I was very pleasantly surprised - it's not nearly as "soft" as some would lead you to believe. I typically do 12 X 18 prints, and at this size, the "sharpness" is more than adequate for most things I do. It USM's nicely.

I agree with the poster who joked that "Canon has apparently made "secret" improvements to this lens since it was first introduced, because I just don't see the excessive softness sometimes mentioned"

Although I also have the 100-400L IS, I have no qualms about using this lens when a somewhat lighter and more portable package is called for. It's actually one of my favorite lenses given it's combination of virtues.

Many will suggest the 70-200 f4L instead of this lens, and I would agree it is slightly sharper, but realize you are giving up 100mm of reach and "handholdability" of IS, not to mention a couple of hundred bucks.

12-28-2004, 10:52 AM
I have the 70-200 and often barrow the 70-300is and have to say that the extra 100mm is WAY worth it.. I plan to get rid of my 70-200 f4l and get the 100-400IS L next fall. Have you looked into renting a 100-400 lens? that would be a great lens to have with you for shooting distance.