Purchasing a 70-200 F4 L (is)advice

[Lloyd50]

Hello,
Im new here and just purchased a canon 7d that i love, i am now looking for a decent zoom lens with image stabilization technology. I made the mistake of purchasing a 70-200 f4 L non IS which is still a great lens that i just sold and now im contemplating buying the 70-200 f4 is version (is) for a walk around zoom lens, i am also looking at the 70-300 (is) lens as well.
all of your input will be greatly appreciated, thanks!

[HughHowey]

I'm just about to pull the trigger on the 70-300, but I've been considering the same two lenses you're looking at. For me, I want the extra 100mm, especially since I plan on picking up a 5D3 when it comes out. The lens has great reviews, is newer, has awesome IS, and with either one, I'd be planning on shooting in decent light (wildlife and outdoor sports).

Just my thoughts...

[ronderick]

I think both are great lens, but I personally prefer the 24-105 f/4L to be my walk-around lens.

Between the 2, I think the 70-200 has the edge in speed, while the 70-300 has the advantage in reach (I would assume that the 70-300 is probably more portable than the 70-200, though I may be wrong). However, you can also add an extender to the 70-200, but not the 70-300.

[Lloyd50]

I think i'll be glad i bought the 70-200 in the long run. i purchased the 70-200 non is, loved the clarity but didn't like the blurry shot i got when shooting free handed at 200mm. i found the 70-200 f4 is version for 980.00 on craigslist and i think i'm going to buy it. one day i hope to be able to afford the 70-200 f2.8 is.

[Flake]

Apart from the snob value of a big white lens there's the cost & the weight & the high profile.  If you want a lens which performs just as well but costs a fraction of the price then consider the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM.  Despite what others might tell you the L version has not been universally well reviewed - check Photozones findings.

If you have an amount of money burning a hole in your pocket, then consider the Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8 OS yes it's heavy & has a massive front element, but images are pin sharp and it allows in four times as much light as the f5.6 lens.  It'll take teleconverters, and still stay commercially sharp.  As a sports & wildlife lens it's fantastic, as a walkaround it's not really suitable.

Sigmas 100 - 300mm f/4 is also a very sharp lens - still fast at 300mm but a lot lighter than the f/2.8 and quite a lot cheaper than the Canon - no IS though.

[neuroanatomist]

You have a 70-200mm, so you know if you need more reach or not.  If you do, the 70-300mm will outperform the 70-200mm f/4L IS + 1.4x extender (II or III).  If you don't need that reach, the 70-200mm f/4L IS is an excellent lens...

...consider the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM. Despite what others might tell you the [70-300mm] L version has not been universally well reviewed - check Photozones findings.

The non-L version falls apart at the long end.  Badly.  Look for yourself (compared to the 70-200mm L non-IS the OP currently has).  I think the non-L version is a soft mess at 300mm by comparison (and the crops are from an APS-C camera, it's even worse on FF without the 'sweet-spot' effect - which isn't that sweet here, IMO).  In that approximate range, even the much cheaper EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS is better (although it lacks USM, the 70-300mm non-L might as well not have it, either - its USM is micromotor USM, with no full-time manual option, and the front element rotates during focusing, too).

Regarding the 70-300mm L, in Photozone's APS-C review of the lens (OP has a 7D), they state, "The lens performs somewhat worse on a full format camera but we didn't find any significant downside within the APS-C scope ... apart from its very high pricing maybe. Therefore highly recommended here!"  From photozone.de, that's an excellent review.  Their issue with the lens (borne out in the ISO12233 crops on TDP) is that it loses a little sharpness at the borders on a FF body, but that part is cropped away on APS-C.

[Flake]

It's hardly fair to look for the worst review from one site and then compare it with a review from a different site !

Lets take a look at what the sites both say, and lets compare the performance on FF which is always worse than crop.  The OP has a 7D but the second poster is considering a FF.

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS is a decent performer and a great value offer. It is capable of delivering superb results at 70mm (for a slow speed lens) and it's still pretty good at 200mm and even 300mm. The vignetting is comparatively moderate even at max aperture. Lateral CAs are quite well controlled. The amount of distortion is about average between 70mm and 200mm but at 300mm the rather heavy amount of pincushion distortion can be disturbing in some situations (e.g. architecture photography). The build quality is about typical for a consumer lens but the rotating front element seems a little dated by now. You won't classify the 70-300mm IS as an AF speed demon but it's reasonably fast compared to similar tele zoom lenses with a conventional AF motor. However, it's one of the slower AF lenses in the native Canon lineup.

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS delivers high quality results throughout the zoom range but especially at 70mm. At 300mm it is clearly better than its in-house cousins (EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS & EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM DO IS) reaching very good to excellent center results combined very good(-) borders/corners. The light falloff at max. aperture is comparatively well controlled. The amount of distortions is about average for a lens in this class. Lateral CAs are very low. The quality of the bokeh is good for such a slow speed lens.
 The build quality is outstanding and that's despite the zoom extension system - it doesn't really get any better in this class - and the sealing is the cream on the cappuccino here. The USM AF is extremely fast and near silent.
 
So does the EF 70-300mm USM L IS live up to the high expectations ? Well, I'd say mostly but not entirely. The optical quality is at the high end for a lens in the 300mm zoom class but it doesn't shine quite as bright as e.g. the (more affordable) EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS and, frankly, the pricing isn't aligned accordingly. Yet you won't find another EF mount lens with this build quality, range, compact size and very decent optical quality.
 

There are pros & cons to consider, the non L is vastly cheaper at around a third of the price of the L; it's about half the weight; and performance is good enough for a commercial standard.  The L is better built and has slightly better performance.

IMO it's pointless seeking ultimate quality in either of these lenses, if you want that buy something else.  The saving from the cheaper lens would buy a 100mm L macro or the non L and a 50mm, or perhaps to give it a little more perspective a 70 - 300mm & a 24 - 105mm f/4 IS L.  Alternatively the 100 - 400mm L is a good performer, and gives an extra 100mm for a similar price.

[neuroanatomist]

It's hardly fair to look for the worst review from one site and then compare it with a review from a different site !

Lets take a look at what the sites both say, and lets compare the performance on FF which is always worse than crop.

I was not linking to reviews from different sites - I linked TDP's test results (which speak for themselves, I think), and to the PZ review.  It's hardly fair to imply that PZ gave the 70-300mm L a bad review (which is how I interpret "...the L version has not been universally well reviewed - check Photozones findings.").  That was my point in quoting them.  By the way, you're showing quotes from only one site (photozone.de), and even then, their FF review of the 70-300mm L can hardly be called unfavorable.

Any way you slice the pie, the 70-300mm non-L lens is not going to deliver the IQ of an L-series telezoom.  The OP already has a 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS), and thus I think would be rather unhappy with the images from the 70-300mm non-L lens.  The second poster (HughHowey) also has L-series primes in that focal range (much better IQ), and the 55-250mm (similar IQ to the 70-300mm non-L, but obviously can't be used on FF). 

[S P]

I think i'll be glad i bought the 70-200 in the long run. i purchased the 70-200 non is, loved the clarity but didn't like the blurry shot i got when shooting free handed at 200mm. i found the 70-200 f4 is version for 980.00 on craigslist and i think i'm going to buy it. one day i hope to be able to afford the 70-200 f2.8 is.

Just up the ISO a stop.  Make sure you're at 1/200s or faster, or if you really want to be safe 1/320s or faster.  I have the non-IS version and love it.  99% of what I shoot requires shutter speeds of 1/200s or faster anyways, so I didn't bother with the IS version.  Even the landscape shots I do (floral, spring blossoms, etc) typically require faster shutters speeds because I live up on a hill that gets a lot of wind so even when things are 'still' they're really not.  Am also glad Canon actually gives you a choice and doesn't just ram IS down your throat if you don't want or need it.   I had been planning to eventually get the IS version, but have been so pleased with the non-IS that I haven't bothered.  If you plan to shoot things that are absolutely dead still and in marginal or fading light a lot, yes the IS version is worth every penny.

[triggermike]

I have owned the 70-300 IS non-L zoom and the 70-200 f4 L IS zoom and have to say there was no comparison between the two. The 70-200 L lens produces fantastic color/contrast and images at or near the sharpness of a prime. Simply put, this lens is as good as it gets for this focal range. The quality here outshines the loss of the additional 100mm. The only thing you give up here is the 2.8 aperature available on the much pricier 'big brother.'
As for the 70-300 L, I do not have first hand knowledge of its image quality, but I feel anytime you can get a fixed aperature zoom at the lowest (widest) aperature you can afford you are ahead of the game. This lens is much larger/heavier than the 70-200 f4 which is very light, narrow and easy to handhold.

[autochrome]

The 70-300 f4.0-56 USM IS, it's an ok lens, decent performance, but over the 200mm range it starts to soften a bit, at least that's the impression it gave me. The 70-200L, either the f2.8 IS or 4.0 IS models are entirely different beasts altogether.
I was undecided between the f2.8 (IS) and the f4.0 (IS). After having tried both, well, the extra stop of the f2.8 is nice, but the extra weight isn't (nor the price difference), so i got the f4.0 (IS). You could get the non IS f2.8 for the same price of the f4.0 IS, but if my memory serves me right, this older model has no weather sealing, something which i found quite handy on a couple of times already. The IS... the IS is nice, but don't forget to disable it if you're using it on a tripod. It would be nice to have in the camera (whatever camera) an option to IS on/off via a switch of button, specially if you're focusing manually in live view with magnification (perhaps there is and i haven't found that yet).
The lens performance is astonishing. Sharp images, good contrast, good color rendition. It's somewhat prone to flare, specially if you shoot at night, but then again that's why you have a lens hood.
The only negative point in the lens is that it's not included a lens ring mount, and although the lens isn't really heavy (unlike the f2.8 which starts to make itself felt after an hour or two) if you plan on using it a tripod, get the lens ring mount and avoid stressing the lens mount in the camera.
The price, you get what you pay for, i don't regret a bit having bought that lens, it's worth every cent.
If you have the chance to try both the f2.8 and f4.0, try it, see for yourself the results.

[awinphoto]

I second neuroanatomist views on the 70-200 F4 IS vs the 70-300 IS non L lens.  There really is no fair comparison.  The L lens will have the L build and L optics.  Go to canon's website and pull up the 2 lenses and compare the MTF charts which will show you how each lens preforms on contrast (sharpness) and resolution both across the frame of the lens but diagonally as well.  the 70-300 is ok on the short end but on the long end, it's not close.  If you're buying the lens for the short end of the lens, then maybe they're close enough at the dead center of the lens, but then why wouldn't you consider the 24-105 like another poster suggested.  If you need the lens for the long end, get the L lens.  You wont be sorry.

Now if your comparing the lens with the 70-300 IS L lens, then it's another ball of wax and you have to consider the extra weight and cost and external zooming it does, but you get the extra 100mm which according to some preforms as well as the 70-200.  That's a call only you and your pocketbook can make. 

[Lloyd50]

thanks for all the advice! I'm now looking at the 70-200 f2.8IS  that ive found for a great price, the 70-200 f4 lIS is still in the running as well. I'm leaning towards the 2.8l IS version.