Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0
Discussion
Not too sure which lens to buy to go with my 20d.
Stood and looked at them both, but would like some input if possible from the Pistonheads Photography Massive.
The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is about £400, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is around £450.
Taking images of ski-ing, and some F1, what would you buy, and why.
Any advice gratefully received.
ta
Stood and looked at them both, but would like some input if possible from the Pistonheads Photography Massive.
The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is about £400, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is around £450.
Taking images of ski-ing, and some F1, what would you buy, and why.
Any advice gratefully received.
ta
Personally I'd go for the 70-200 f/4 L USM. Reason being that on the 70-300, the widest aperture you can get at 300mm is f/5.6 and if you add a 1.4x converter to the 70-200, it'll make it a 100-280 f/5.6 so you've got your range covered. Then, the fact that it is L glass swings it for me.
If you've gone to the cost of buying an EOS 20D then I'd save your pennies a bit longer and go for the F2.8 70-200 L USM IS lens. It's widely regarded as the most versatile "best" lens that Canon make.
However the decision you've asked for is a little tricky. The L series lenses have better optics but the 70-300 has image stabilising which would be useful for the (presumably hand held) work you mention.
I have the 70-300 IS USM lens myself (found new on eBay through a reputable seller for £329) and I've been very happy with the results so far. But then I only use an 350D so my opinion probably doesn't count for much in photography circles
However the decision you've asked for is a little tricky. The L series lenses have better optics but the 70-300 has image stabilising which would be useful for the (presumably hand held) work you mention.
I have the 70-300 IS USM lens myself (found new on eBay through a reputable seller for £329) and I've been very happy with the results so far. But then I only use an 350D so my opinion probably doesn't count for much in photography circles
stuttgartmetal said:
Not too sure which lens to buy to go with my 20d.
Stood and looked at them both, but would like some input if possible from the Pistonheads Photography Massive.
The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is about £400, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is around £450.
Taking images of ski-ing, and some F1, what would you buy, and why.
Any advice gratefully received.
ta
I would agree with the others have said with regard to stretching to the 70-200 f2.8 if possible Stood and looked at them both, but would like some input if possible from the Pistonheads Photography Massive.
The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is about £400, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens is around £450.
Taking images of ski-ing, and some F1, what would you buy, and why.
Any advice gratefully received.
ta
I had the same decision last year
I went with 70-300 for a few reasons - - 2 mode IS (one specifically for panning)
- Extra 100mm
- Difference in image quality with 70-200 f4 not massive
I don't use the lens exclusively for sport / motorsport but i've used it at trackdays and was happy with the results (old threads here and here
The only downsides are the slower AF (Micro USM rather then Ring USM), a rotating + extending front element when focusing, and the lack of full-time manual focus. Have to decide whether your F1 needs require the super-fast focusing of the 70-200 f4
If possible, i'd go to a high-street shop and have a go with both models
when i had a look at the 70-200 i found that it didn't quite have the magnification that i was looking for. I'd mention the online price difference as well - warehouse express has the 70-300 for £359 and the 70-200 f4 for £449.
I'm very happy with my 70-300, but if i was only shooting motorsports / track-days then i could see the appeal of the faster focusing 70-200 f4
(or even better the 70-200 f2.8, or even better 70-200 f2.8 IS !)Cheers.
stuttgartmetal said:
FPC.
Now there you go, I had my mind made up, and you punish me with your previous threads ! Very nice camera work.
I could possibly stretch to this
Is the 100 400 that much better ?
No problem Now there you go, I had my mind made up, and you punish me with your previous threads ! Very nice camera work.
I could possibly stretch to this
Is the 100 400 that much better ?
I'm sure many of the awesome shots on the Best Motorsport Photograph 2007 have used the 70-200 series of lenses
Just wanted to speak up for the 70-300 The 100-400 certainly has a good rep, i'd love one
Only 'downsides' i know are the push-pull zoom, even then its matter of personal preference
Some reviews:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php...
Cheers.
The 70-200f2.8 is more money and heavier.
And utterly pointless if you dont use it at f2.8, may as well save the money and get the f4. Which is a corker.
I'm not saying dont, but the F4 is good enough for skiing and motorsports so long as theres half decent light, its got the same reach and produces equaly good images.
70-300IS is good too, pretty sharp and almost matches the f4L up to 200mm, its not quite as fast or as sharp after that but thats bonus reach anyhow, but IMO its lack of good focus motors is a BIG downpoint.
I still havnt decided which I;d go for, or look for a sigma 70-200f2.8 or a 100-400L. Guess it depends on my budget at the time.
And utterly pointless if you dont use it at f2.8, may as well save the money and get the f4. Which is a corker.
I'm not saying dont, but the F4 is good enough for skiing and motorsports so long as theres half decent light, its got the same reach and produces equaly good images.
70-300IS is good too, pretty sharp and almost matches the f4L up to 200mm, its not quite as fast or as sharp after that but thats bonus reach anyhow, but IMO its lack of good focus motors is a BIG downpoint.
I still havnt decided which I;d go for, or look for a sigma 70-200f2.8 or a 100-400L. Guess it depends on my budget at the time.
stuttgartmetal said:
Hi Guys,
thanks for all your answers.
It looks like Im going to go for the 70 200.
Ive spoken to this guy on e bay, for a good price.
I hope I can live up to it.
Best Wishes
Stuttgartmetal
Hithanks for all your answers.
It looks like Im going to go for the 70 200.
Ive spoken to this guy on e bay, for a good price.
I hope I can live up to it.
Best Wishes
Stuttgartmetal
Regardless of which lens you go for (I have the 70-200 2.8 IS which is the dogs btw
)I have bought from this chap off eBay and had a good experience and would trust him again.
Difficult decision, it's a shame we can't have them all!
Cheers
Martin
Edited by mogul on Sunday 20th January 08:28
Right - I've had the 70-300, I now have the 70-200 f4 L and find it a much better lens. At the speed you shoot moving stuff the IS isn't worth it. IS is really useful at slow shutter speeds. Also once you've seen the punch of L glass you're ruined, it's all you'll buy.
F2.8 to F4 is one stop and a shallower depth of field. Do you need that? I know there's a lot of snobbery in lenses, plus I'm not disputing the f2.8 isn't a great lens, but it's outside your budget and in this case I think it's cheaper F4 brother is better suited to you.
The other advantage of the f4 is that it's light. At around 600gms it a delight to use all day long and I've always got it in my camera bag. The majority of times you don't need the 300mm length and for those days you do, you slap on a 1.4x convertor.
If you do need IS then the 70-200 f4 IS is a fantastic lens and only slightly heavier than the f4. However, for the price of a new one of these, I picked up a second hand (like new) 100-400, however at most motorsport events I never use it as you can get close enough with the 70-200. It's only at the really big events like F1 racedays that you need the longer lens. On practice/test days you can get much closer. Other circuits and lower fomulaes are brilliant as it's much more relaxed.
The 100-400 is a push pull lens, which doesn't take long to get used to, but it is a lot heavier - you will notice that weight.
Just to throw you a curve ball, you could upgrade your 20D to a 40D for the price of the upgrade of the 70-200F4 to 70-200 F2.8
For the money you have - my vote is to stick with the 70-200f4 L. You won't be disappointed.
F2.8 to F4 is one stop and a shallower depth of field. Do you need that? I know there's a lot of snobbery in lenses, plus I'm not disputing the f2.8 isn't a great lens, but it's outside your budget and in this case I think it's cheaper F4 brother is better suited to you.
The other advantage of the f4 is that it's light. At around 600gms it a delight to use all day long and I've always got it in my camera bag. The majority of times you don't need the 300mm length and for those days you do, you slap on a 1.4x convertor.
If you do need IS then the 70-200 f4 IS is a fantastic lens and only slightly heavier than the f4. However, for the price of a new one of these, I picked up a second hand (like new) 100-400, however at most motorsport events I never use it as you can get close enough with the 70-200. It's only at the really big events like F1 racedays that you need the longer lens. On practice/test days you can get much closer. Other circuits and lower fomulaes are brilliant as it's much more relaxed.
The 100-400 is a push pull lens, which doesn't take long to get used to, but it is a lot heavier - you will notice that weight.
Just to throw you a curve ball, you could upgrade your 20D to a 40D for the price of the upgrade of the 70-200F4 to 70-200 F2.8
For the money you have - my vote is to stick with the 70-200f4 L. You won't be disappointed.
p.s. Drop Kerso a question about pricing. you can get his contact details from:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/BRAND-NEW-CANON-70-200MM-F4-...
He'll do deals outside ebay and is used lots on other photography forums. I've recently bought a 24-105 lens from him at a very good price. Based in Scotland so no waiting for lenses to come from the us/hong kong. Mine took 5 days, which was mostly waiting for the money to transfer to his bank. Everything sent next day special delivery.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/BRAND-NEW-CANON-70-200MM-F4-...
He'll do deals outside ebay and is used lots on other photography forums. I've recently bought a 24-105 lens from him at a very good price. Based in Scotland so no waiting for lenses to come from the us/hong kong. Mine took 5 days, which was mostly waiting for the money to transfer to his bank. Everything sent next day special delivery.
Quinny said:
Just to throw another spanner in the works
I just couldn't make my mind up when trying to choose, I read review after review, and as I don't have much experience, I took points from the reviews and then went with my gut feeling.
70-200 f2.8 NON IS
And for the extra reach if needed I went for a x 1.4 converter.
The Lens was £629.00, and with £100 cashback it worked out at £529.00.
Can't really comment on the lens yet as I haven't used it
But I check on it every night before I tuck it away in it's fur lined case
Can't wait to give it a go at the first bike meet of the season, and going by what people say, I doubt I'll be disapointed
£629 ?! that's a really good price I just couldn't make my mind up when trying to choose, I read review after review, and as I don't have much experience, I took points from the reviews and then went with my gut feeling.
70-200 f2.8 NON IS
And for the extra reach if needed I went for a x 1.4 converter.
The Lens was £629.00, and with £100 cashback it worked out at £529.00.
Can't really comment on the lens yet as I haven't used it
But I check on it every night before I tuck it away in it's fur lined case
Can't wait to give it a go at the first bike meet of the season, and going by what people say, I doubt I'll be disapointed
Thought they were more like £950, with the IS around £1300
Cheers.
Edited by flat-planedCrank on Monday 21st January 04:13
If your considering a 70-200 f2.8, how about the sigma... if you read reviews of people that use it, they all love it, again extender can be used.
Depends what you really want to use it for. I didnt want the 70-200mm because i already had a 55-200 IS and just wanted something longer for motorsport etc.
So i opted for the 100-400mm L, which has a natural magnification of 0.6.
150-600, that will do.
The f2.8 at the end of the day will give you excellent coverage of anything from 70mm to 400mm if you use a converter. But personally its a bit pricey for me, although if you have a 20D already, you need to think about only buying these things once. With that body.. you should really get the best lens you can.
If it was me.. id go for the 70-200mm, canon if you can, sigma if you want a converter to go with. That should be Sub £1000 and last you a lifetime.
Depends what you really want to use it for. I didnt want the 70-200mm because i already had a 55-200 IS and just wanted something longer for motorsport etc.
So i opted for the 100-400mm L, which has a natural magnification of 0.6.
150-600
, that will do.The f2.8 at the end of the day will give you excellent coverage of anything from 70mm to 400mm if you use a converter. But personally its a bit pricey for me, although if you have a 20D already, you need to think about only buying these things once. With that body.. you should really get the best lens you can.
If it was me.. id go for the 70-200mm, canon if you can, sigma if you want a converter to go with. That should be Sub £1000 and last you a lifetime.
Sorry to resurrect this thread
Just seen this test of image quality between the 70-300 and the 70-200 f4:
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/isvf4
Cheers.
Just seen this test of image quality between the 70-300 and the 70-200 f4:
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/isvf4
Cheers.
I've been dithering about which 70-200 to get, given I will be carrying a camera bag on my person for ooo..about a year
I just tried out the 2.8 IS and it's deceptively heavy. Fine at first but after just a few minutes "playing" in Calumet, it really started to get noticeable.
So now I'm down to the 2.8 NonIS or the 4 IS
Gah...I have found IS handy on the 24-105, I must admit, but it's, what, 1 stop equivalence?
Gah...
I just tried out the 2.8 IS and it's deceptively heavy. Fine at first but after just a few minutes "playing" in Calumet, it really started to get noticeable.
So now I'm down to the 2.8 NonIS or the 4 IS
Gah...I have found IS handy on the 24-105, I must admit, but it's, what, 1 stop equivalence?
Gah...
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff