Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM vrs 70-200 F4 L IS USM

dragon_lordMTB

what with the exchange rates at the moment, I'm thinking of getting a nice zoom lens to go along with my 17-85 f4-5.6 is usm.
I will use the zoom mostly outdoors but will be shooting some mountain bike races also which would be in forests where light is poor etc.
Would I be wasting my time with the F4-5.6? or should I just save up for the daddy f2.8 L?

Fajitas!

I'd aim for the 2.8 over a period of time, but you can get a 70-300 for about 200 quid... Maybe just go for it and see if you like the focal length before saving for a zoom you don't know if you need yet?

dragon_lordMTB

Cheapest I can find a UK sourced 70-300 is about £250 but is good value compared to what is on offer in Ireland.

Ballyman

dragon_lordMTB wrote: »

Cheapest I can find a UK sourced 70-300 is about £250 but is good value compared to what is on offer in Ireland.

You can get the sigma version of this lens for about €100 online if you have a look.

I had it and it was perfect for what it was intended.

.Longshanks.

Ballyman wrote: »

You can get the sigma version of this lens for about €100 online if you have a look.

I had it and it was perfect for what it was intended.

Looking into this one myself - cameracentre in Blanchards town are looking for€169 for the DG version and €199 for the APO version.....

Ricky91t

dragon_lordMTB wrote: »

Cheapest I can find a UK sourced 70-300 is about £250 but is good value compared to what is on offer in Ireland.

Link please?
Would like to see other prices from this shop/seller/site

bmcgrath

Stay away from that 70-300. It's really not worth it IMHO!
As for the 70-200 f/4L IS. I can tell you it's a fantastic lens. I have one and it's very sharp, great colour and contrast and build quality is top notch.

But of course if you can get the f/2.8 version....

Ricky91t

bmcgrath wrote: »

Stay away from that 70-300. It's really not worth it IMHO!
As for the 70-200 f/4L IS. I can tell you it's a fantastic lens. I have one and it's very sharp, great colour and contrast and build quality is top notch.

But of course if you can get the f/2.8 version....

Sorry,why would you buy an f/4 is version when you can get the f/2.8 for a tiny bit more

311

I still use my 70-300 ocassionally ,it's floopy and droopy compared to the L stuff.

bmcgrath

Ricky91t wrote: »

Sorry,why would you buy an f/4 is version when you can get the f/2.8 for a tiny bit more

IS and Weight. Thats why.

Fionn

pretty good review on that lens here

Owenw

Plus points

* Lightweight - great for walking around all day.
* Almost as good PQ as the 70-200L f/4.
* Extra 300mm reach
* Less noticeable than a white lens.

Negative points

* Build quality is mediocre - the lens even has a lock on it at the 70mm end to stop it drooping.
* The lens rotates as you focus so it's a pain using polarisers.
* Some softness from around 200-300mm
* Slow auto focus and no FTM - only has micromotor USM
* Lens extends during zooming.
* Noisy IS gyros

I got my 70-300 before the 70-200 f/4 IS came out.
I'd get one of those in preference if I was getting one now.

Shinjuku

Owenw wrote: »

Negative points

* Build quality is mediocre - the lens even has a lock on it at the 70mm end to stop it drooping.
* The lens rotates as you focus so it's a pain using polarisers.
* Some softness from around 200-300mm
* Slow auto focus and no FTM - only has micromotor USM
* Lens extends during zooming.
* Noisy IS gyros

Yes the lens extends during zooming, but with a 70-200mm it's contantly zoomed out and huge, you can't unzoom it and easily pack it away. And the IS gyros aren't noisy! You really wouln't notice it unless you stuck it into somebodys ear.

The 70-300mm is usm is a great lens. Don't get the sigma 70-300mm, it's fairly crap. Also, don't get the 70-200mm L lenses just yet. Those things are way too much "lens" if you know what I mean. If you feel that the 70-300mm is usm limits your photography in some way then go for the 70-200mm 2.8.

lukeod

Longshanks100 wrote: »

Looking into this one myself - cameracentre in Blanchards town are looking for€169 for the DG version and €199 for the APO version.....

Could be wrong, but think perhaps they're not the IS lenses you're looking at????

Ricky91t

lukeod wrote: »

Could be wrong, but think perhaps they're not the IS lenses you're looking at????

No he's looking at the sigma versions and he knows it

lukeod

Ricky91t wrote: »

No he's looking at the sigma versions and he knows it

Ok. Just the original post was about IS versions...

Ricky91t

lukeod wrote: »

Ok. Just the original post was about IS versions...

Things can go off topic quite quickly here

lukeod

Ricky91t wrote: »

Things can go off topic quite quickly here

My point exactly!

Anyway. I have the 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it.

Owenw

Shinjuku wrote: »

Yes the lens extends during zooming, but with a 70-200mm it's contantly zoomed out and huge, you can't unzoom it and easily pack it away. And the IS gyros aren't noisy! You really wouln't notice it unless you stuck it into somebodys ear.

The 70-300mm is usm is a great lens. Don't get the sigma 70-300mm, it's fairly crap. Also, don't get the 70-200mm L lenses just yet. Those things are way too much "lens" if you know what I mean. If you feel that the 70-300mm is usm limits your photography in some way then go for the 70-200mm 2.8.

Fair point about the zoom.
I must have been unlucky - the IS sounds like it has sand in the gears even after having it serviced. It's not a major issue anyway.

Agree about the Sigma. Friend of mine has one and it's falling apart after 5 years light use. It is painfully slow to focus and the PQ is not anywhere near as good as the Canon 70-300 IS.

Here's the FM review of the 70-300 IS:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294&sort=7&cat=27&page=3

the 70-200L f/4
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&cat=27&page=3

and the 70-200L f/4 IS
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=304&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

.Longshanks.

Ricky91t wrote: »

No he's looking at the sigma versions and he knows it

Is correct.
Sorry for dragging this thread off topic (again). But as i'm only starting out i think the sigma lens would be my best. I think i would really like to have a bit of zoom over the kit lens that comes with the Canon 1000D that arrives next week. For me theres no point spending €400-600 on a lens i don't (yet) know if really need or make use of. I am prepared to take a gamble on €200 sigma lens thou unless somebody has a better recommendation?

bmcgrath

Longshanks100 wrote: »

Is correct.
Sorry for dragging this thread off topic (again). But as i'm only starting out i think the sigma lens would be my best. I think i would really like to have a bit of zoom over the kit lens that comes with the Canon 1000D that arrives next week. For me theres no point spending €400-600 on a lens i don't (yet) know if really need or make use of. I am prepared to take a gamble on €200 sigma lens thou unless somebody has a better recommendation?

The Sigma is good. Just make sure its the APO version.

Thirdfox

Don't Canon do a cheap(ish) 55-250mm vr (oops - IS) lens? Heard good things about it... (Nikon-head here).

edit: - apparently around 250 euro - http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/45-canon-eos-aps-c/194-canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56-is-test-report--review

.Longshanks.

bmcgrath wrote: »

The Sigma is good. Just make sure its the APO version.

Thanks for that. Yeah its the APO version. Its limitations will be more than enough for me for a while yet....

Thirdfox wrote: »

Don't Canon do a cheap(ish) 55-250mm vr (oops - IS) lens? Heard good things about it... (Nikon-head here).

edit: - apparently around 250 euro - http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/45-canon-eos-aps-c/194-canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56-is-test-report--review

Thanks, i'll have a look into that one also