70-200 F/4 L?

[nwafan20]

Heres a thought:

Should I go with the 70-200 f/4 L or the 70-300 IS F/4-5.6 taking into account the recommendation for 300mm.

But, did you mean 300mm in 35mm format or 1.6 Digital Rebel format.

Because 200 at 1.6x is 320mm, and 300mm at 1.6x is 480mm

[Jonesbeach]

I have the 70-200 F/4 L and I love it. I just got it Christmas and it's been a great lens to have. It took me a long time to decide on the 70-200 L over the 70-300. Basically what I read is that if you were to crop a shot taken at 200mm with L glass, it will be better than the 300mm non-L shot at full resolution. Apparently the L glass gives you that much of an edge over the regular glass they use in their other lenses.

[nwafan20]

Hmm, Ok, thanks Jonesbeach, I think I will go with the 70-200 f/4 L then.

[madcatimages]

Heres a thought:

Should I go with the 70-200 f/4 L or the 70-300 IS F/4-5.6 taking into account the recommendation for 300mm.

But, did you mean 300mm in 35mm format or 1.6 Digital Rebel format.

Because 200 at 1.6x is 320mm, and 300mm at 1.6x is 480mm

U need 300mm w/ a 1.6 crop (XT)

[madcatimages]

I have the 70-200 F/4 L and I love it. I just got it Christmas and it's been a great lens to have. It took me a long time to decide on the 70-200 L over the 70-300. Basically what I read is that if you were to crop a shot taken at 200mm with L glass, it will be better than the 300mm non-L shot at full resolution. Apparently the L glass gives you that much of an edge over the regular glass they use in their other lenses.

I am not to sure about that.
You can always get a 1.4x converter for your 200mm though, 2x might be pushing it though.

[Derf]

Heres a thought:

Should I go with the 70-200 f/4 L or the 70-300 IS F/4-5.6 taking into account the recommendation for 300mm.

But, did you mean 300mm in 35mm format or 1.6 Digital Rebel format.

Because 200 at 1.6x is 320mm, and 300mm at 1.6x is 480mm

U need 300mm w/ a 1.6 crop (XT)

I do not agree...I have a 300mm but would rather a tack sharp 200 with a 1.4 converter. Image quality is more important than the minor zoom difference...add the 1.4 tc and you got almost the same lens as far as reach but a difference in quality. Every 70-300 that I have seen gets soft at the max zoom. 200 is much better! I have been researching this for a long time.

[nwafan20]

Alright, seems the consensus here is the 70-200 f/4 L for a sub-$500 lens. I think I will go with that, and if I need some extra reach I will order the 1.4x converter.

[GrummanFan]

Well now I'm all messed up. I was all set to go get the Canon 75-300mm USM non-IS lens, but now I'm starting to second guess myself. I know I'm going to need the reach, and I dont want to spend that much on a lens since I'm most likely going to get the 100-400 sometime in the future, but I need a zoom to hold me through at least this summer.

Now I've got some more thinking to do. Thanks alot, guys :evil:

[madcatimages]

The 70-300mm is a GREAT lens, (new versions) u can get L quality photos out of it. Just go to dpreview.com search around in the forums and go to Fred mea%^*% google "FM fred" take a look at the reviews there, that will help u decide.

The 70-200L f4 is also a good lens, but in an earlier post somebody said they rather have that lens and crop it in Photoshop. (thats what I dont agree on)
I belive in fill the frame on the camera rather than in photoshop for best results.
*warning* example~~~~ Take a pic of a jet thats at flight 350, with a 200mmL lens than a 500mm sigma EX lens. now crop that 200mm pic, not so good is it? take the 500mm lens, no need to crop=better IQ.
(just to further my opinion)

But get the 1.4x converter for the 70-200mm, that will be good for starters, but u might want to get the 2x converter eventually. (or at least I did.lol)
the 2x converter will drop down the quality A LOT. (and it will be a slow lens)

Im not sure if the 1.4x converter will drop IQ any. If it does u might want to get the 70-300mmIS. the IS is amazing, saves a lot of pics when in low light.

[nwafan20]

Well now I'm all messed up. I was all set to go get the Canon 75-300mm USM non-IS lens, but now I'm starting to second guess myself. I know I'm going to need the reach, and I dont want to spend that much on a lens since I'm most likely going to get the 100-400 sometime in the future, but I need a zoom to hold me through at least this summer.

Now I've got some more thinking to do. Thanks alot, guys :evil:

The non-IS 70-300 is a worthless lens, do yourself a favor and don't even consider it!!!

[Jonesbeach]

I just want to clarify what I said before about cropping. In general I don't think cropping is better than using a longer lens. But in this case, we are comparing 200mm and 300mm lenses, I think that cropping a 200mm L lens gets you more detail than taking the original shot with the non-L 300mm lens. Only because I think the L glass gives you that much more detail in your picture to work with.
Regarding your other example, I don't think anyone here would disagree that a 200mm L lens can't compare to any 500mm lens of decent quality.
Good luck on your decision.

Steve

[madcatimages]

Well now I'm all messed up. I was all set to go get the Canon 75-300mm USM non-IS lens, but now I'm starting to second guess myself. I know I'm going to need the reach, and I dont want to spend that much on a lens since I'm most likely going to get the 100-400 sometime in the future, but I need a zoom to hold me through at least this summer.

Now I've got some more thinking to do. Thanks alot, guys :evil:

The non-IS 70-300 is a worthless lens, do yourself a favor and don't even consider it!!!

Oh, I messed up. I didnt read that too carefully.

Dont spend your money on the 75-300mm non IS, Its just an OK lens.
You wont get to many "pro" quality images out of it.
Save your money for the NEW 70-300mmIS, or the 70-200mm w/ a 1.4x converter.

[madcatimages]

I just want to clarify what I said before about cropping. In general I don't think cropping is better than using a longer lens. But in this case, we are comparing 200mm and 300mm lenses, I think that cropping a 200mm L lens gets you more detail than taking the original shot with the non-L 300mm lens. Only because I think the L glass gives you that much more detail in your picture to work with.
Regarding your other example, I don't think anyone here would disagree that a 200mm L lens can't compare to any 500mm lens of decent quality.
Good luck on your decision.

Steve

I guess it all depends on how much you crop too.
Canon primes (L) I think you would be able to crop and still have great image quality, but the canon zooms (100-400L...) I still rather have longer reach.

I am sorry It sounds like I am trying to start a fight or something.
I think I am done now. :)

[nwafan20]

Don't worry about it, it is a nice debate!

But the 70-200L w/ 1.4x converter looks good, the only thing I am worried about is it not having IS, but I don't have the money for the IS version.

[GrummanFan]

Don't worry about it, it is a nice debate!

Yup, this thread may have just saved me from making a big mistake!

Look like I'll just have to bite the bullet and get the $500 70-300IS. I was hoping to get a decent nonIS zoom for around $200, but it doesn't seem like that's possible. When, and if, I get the 100-400, Ill sell this one. No reason to have both. And as far as the cropping thing goes, I'm of the opinion that the less photoshop you have to do, the better.

Thanks again for everyones input and expertise, this is why I like the forum so much!