70-200 f4 NON IS Vs 70-300 f4-5.6 IS: Canon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (2024)

Alex BondSmithwrote:

Words of wisdom about glass and IS being equally important.
Personally, if I could only afford one of the options, I would go IS
every time.

You don't really mean that, do you? You surely wouldn't choose IS over image quality regardless of how bad the image quality was. The old 75-300 IS was the first IS lens I ever came across (a friend owned one) and the benefit of the IS was a revelation to me at the time. But the image quality was frankly terrible.

The 70-300 IS is very much better of course. But still the difference in image quality compared with the 70-200/4 is greater than some people realise. I referred to this comparison in an earlier post:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=9&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=104&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0

It's night and day - and while ok that is just one test result, it is pretty much in agreement with many other reports I have read. When you add together the image quality difference, build quality, ring USM and FTM, and internal focusing, you have a package that cannot simply be dismissed with "I would go IS every time".

With my 70-200/4 I can achieve everything you can simply by holding the camera steady. Except fitting it into a smaller bag

like I said 55-250. either that or the f/4 IS

Peter 13wrote:

I would not get either, and I did not. Save for the 70-200 f/4 IS.

If the money is issue, then 70-300IS is decent lens. Between 70-200mm the results from this lens are very nice. Plus you have another 100mm, just in case... Otherwise, I will save some $$$ and buy 70-200 f4L IS. That's my way - I did buy 70-300IS for now, but deffinitely will end with IS version of 70-200 later. IS is sooo usefull for telephoto. I'm happy that I didn't buy non-IS L-glass. It will be hard to decide to sale it for new one, with IS.

http://hiking.sk/hk/ga/3692/tatry-novy.html
Handheld shot at 480mm, 1/80s and F10, ISO100. No chance without IS.
--
400+10-22+18-55+70-300=121

mato_dwrote:

If the money is issue, then 70-300IS is decent lens. Between
70-200mm the results from this lens are very nice. Plus you have
another 100mm, just in case... Otherwise, I will save some $$$ and
buy 70-200 f4L IS. That's my way - I did buy 70-300IS for now, but
deffinitely will end with IS version of 70-200 later. IS is sooo
usefull for telephoto. I'm happy that I didn't buy non-IS L-glass. It
will be hard to decide to sale it for new one, with IS.

I will probably upgrade to the IS version one day too, but it is quite common in these discussions (I have discovered!) for people to insist that the 70-200 IS is the only possible choice and that ignores the fact that most people don't have unlimited funds. The 70-200/4 non-IS and the 70-300 IS are currently very similar prices (the differential is reduced by the cashback) but the 70-200 IS is around double the price. At one retailer I just checked, nett of cashback, the prices are £309, £348 and £629 respectively.

So you and I both have had to choose a lens that is affordable now, with the prospect of upgrading later. I've already explained some of the reasons for my choice elsewhere in this thread so I won't repeat all that. But another is that I have a definite plan to buy a 300 f/4L IS next year. The £300 I have saved by buying the 70-200 non-IS will bring the 300/4 closer, perhaps by several months. And the 300/4 will change the role of the 70-200 in my bag - I will no longer be putting a TC on it and struggling for reach, something that I accept will be one of the short term consequences of not choosing the 70-300 IS.

I guess the point I want to ram home is that there are many different reasons for choosing a lens and IS is just one of them. It is not necessarily the deciding factor and wasn't for me.

I'm in a pretty similar situation where the 70-200 f4 IS is not an option right now or in the near future due to the cost.

I guess I just need to rent both lenses and try them out so I can make a better decision for my personal preferences. Thanks for the info.

Brett14wrote:

I'd be interested in the 55-250 IS if it was sold in the United
States but since it's not I don't know how I would get one.

You should be able to get one from Hong Kong via eBay. I've bought a few low value items that way, such as filters - Hong Kong prices helped me to buy a B+W Kaesemann polariser, for example, which I could no way have justified at UK prices. I've never bought a lens from HK and to be honest I don't think I would, but given the price of the 55-250 IS it's not much of a risk is it?

Peter 13wrote:

I would not get either, and I did not. Save for the 70-200 f/4 IS. At
200 mm (320 equivalent on a crop body), you need IS more than you
think. I have taken concert photos at f/15, 200 mm, very sharp. Also,
apparently the IS version of 70-200 f/4 has better optics. I own the
IS version but not the other one, so I cannot tell from my own
experience.

You are trying to choose between two "evils" - no L glass vs. no IS.
They are equally important, IMHO. Blurred shot from an L glass looks
no much better than a blurred shot from a non L glass, unless we are
talking about bokeh.

I remembered when spending $600 was really reaching for me. Trying to save upwards to $1000 would take too long, especially when an important vacation trip that was coming up. I went with the 70-200/4L non-IS to replace my old 75-300 mk III at the time.

Awesome lens. Just loved how well shots came out in good light.

However, available light indoor shooting showed where IS would really help. A monopod would have also really helped, but, I wasn't too comfortable using one back then.

If the 70-300 IS was available when I bought my 70-200, I think I'd be happier with it for the $600.

300mm is really nice to have and really benefits from IS. The 70-300 IS image quality is decent enough that to suit my needs. I have the option of taking sharper pictures of subjects that don't move much by stopping down/increasing shutter speed. It's also slightly shorter than the 70-200 which helps in camera bag selection.

When money became less tight, I swapped out the 70-200/4L non-IS for the IS version. Love that lens. I do consider borrowing a friend's 70-300 DO IS occasionally when carrying the longer 70-200 is a little too big.

A XTi with the 18-55 IS and 70-300 IS is a smaller/lighter combination than a 40D w/ 17-55 IS and 70-200.

Image quality is very important, but, there's times when you can do with less IQ in trade for more flexibility.

Digpicswrote:

Andy, congrats on your decision on the 70-200L.

This thread is helpful because I am looking at the same 2 lenses. I
was leaning toward the 70-300 because 1) I like the extra reach, and
2) I assume IS will give me many more keepers.

Now I'm rethinking my decision...

Does a noob like me benefit more from L glass or IS?

The 70-200 f4 L is a simply fantastic lens, I love mine. However, your point of noob and L vs IS is valid.

In my opinion a noob, and I mean true noob to SLR photography, benefits more from IS than the increased speed of the L lens. Particularly with these two lenses as opposed to say the old 75-300 IS, it was pretty much junk.

Using a longish lens requires the correct use of technique. Noobs generally do not even know that this is an issue, let alone actually work to use proper technique. The longer the lens the more critical this becomes. 200mm is not too bad, but still falls in this category. The IS tends to mask noob long lens errors, resulting in significantly higher keeper rates.

Now, IS and faster glass is the way to go, noob or not, but also cost more So, the 100-400 L IS beats the 70-300 IS in image quality and focal length, but not lens speed (as opposed to say focus speed, were the 100-400 does have an edge), and the 70-200 f4 L IS beats the 70-300 in speed and quality, but not focal length. Lens choices are seldom cut-and-dried, being almost always some kind of trade-off.

T!
--

I got 70-200L non-IS first, then sold it and got 70-300 IS.

L lens has way better build quality -70-300 has rotating front that even goes out when focusing, must switch to manual focus first before focusing with hand and things like that.
But I can very easily live with that. In return I get superb IS and 300mm.

IQ is just about the same, when shooting 250> mm should keep F/8 or higher if possible and pictures are really great. IS is fantastic.

70-200L IS is another story, has weather sealing, IS, superb IQ,

but when it comes to non-IS ver., I would always choose 70-300 IS instead - IS, same IQ, 300mm. The way I see it...

I think I may up my budget to $1000 or so.

The choice would be between a 70-200L IS, or get (2) lenses: 70-300 IS, and a 85mm 1.8. I'm leaning towads the latter.

From the posts here the consensus seems to be the IS will help a noob like me, especially on the longer end. Plus the 1.8 should prove invaluable when I want to shoot my sons HS basketball, or my daughter jumping horses in an indoor riding arena - both in less than ideal lighting.

I was originally thinking I could use the 70-300 IS or the 70-200 versions for this purpose, however, I am hearing the aperature range may be a serious limitatioin with these lenses.

Recommendations?

Peter 13wrote:

I would not get either, and I did not. Save for the 70-200 f/4 IS. At
200 mm (320 equivalent on a crop body), you need IS more than you
think. I have taken concert photos at f/15, 200 mm, very sharp. Also,
apparently the IS version of 70-200 f/4 has better optics. I own the
IS version but not the other one, so I cannot tell from my own
experience.

You are trying to choose between two "evils" - no L glass vs. no IS.
They are equally important, IMHO. Blurred shot from an L glass looks
no much better than a blurred shot from a non L glass, unless we are
talking about bokeh.

Agreed. While im not knocking the Non IS f/4 the IS f/4 is better in that it is also weather sealed and sharper (apparently). Plus the IS is the latest (of the old kind if that makes sense) and also has a panning mode on it that the cheaper lens's dont have.
Even in moderate lighting having IS at 200mm can be very helpful.

In fact out of the two on offer i would go for the 70-300IS as a bit of PP can bring good results if the shot is in focus but can do nothing if there is too much camera shake.

IMHO of course.
--
Dave.

Gallery @
http://davepearce.smugmug.com

Digpicswrote:

I think I may up my budget to $1000 or so.

The choice would be between a 70-200L IS, or get (2) lenses: 70-300
IS, and a 85mm 1.8. I'm leaning towads the latter.

From the posts here the consensus seems to be the IS will help a noob
like me, especially on the longer end.

IS will help anyone, especially at the longer end. What will help a 'noob' (I can't decide whether I actually like that word) is learning good technique.

Plus the 1.8 should prove
invaluable when I want to shoot my sons HS basketball, or my daughter
jumping horses in an indoor riding arena - both in less than ideal
lighting.

Yes yes yes and yes again. That's more than two stops faster than the other lenses you are considering and that is what you need. IS is of no value whatsoever for moving subjects.

I was originally thinking I could use the 70-300 IS or the 70-200
versions for this purpose, however, I am hearing the aperature range
may be a serious limitatioin with these lenses.

Absolutely.

Iwrote:

The
70-200/4 non-IS and the 70-300 IS are currently very similar prices
(the differential is reduced by the cashback) but the 70-200 IS is
around double the price. At one retailer I just checked, nett of
cashback, the prices are £309, £348 and £629 respectively.

Just had another thought about this. If you factor in the extra cost of a lens hood for the 70-300 IS, an eye-watering £32.99 from the same retailer, the respective prices become £342, £348 and £629.

Steve Balcombewrote:
Digpics wrote:
Yes yes yes and yes again. That's more than two stops faster than the
other lenses you are considering and that is what you need. IS is
of no value whatsoever for moving subjects.

I was originally thinking I could use the 70-300 IS or the 70-200
versions for this purpose, however, I am hearing the aperature range
may be a serious limitatioin with these lenses.

Aperatures like f/2.8 or even f/4 on a telephoto lens create very shallow DOP. You have to see it to believe it. You can also take a look here:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

So even for moving subjects, fast telephoto lenses might be of limited use unless you really known what you are doing, where and how to focus, etc. Slight back/front focussiing problems can ruin your picture completely even at f/4. This is what happened to me and I sent my camera for recalibration.

IS can help increase the DOP.

When I first asked the question about these two lenses, up to the point of purchase there were 13 posts, 4 of which were mine. How sad that suddenly, once I've made a purchase 20 posts have appeared some of which tell me I've made the wrong choice. Where were you when I first asked the question?

The fact is there will always be differing opinion about photographic equipment and what is best.

Money no object, we'd probably all buy something different. For most of us however, money is the major limiting factor and getting the best we can for our hard earned cash is the priority.

As others have posted, the difference in cost between the 70-200 NON IS and the 70-200 IS is a staggering £255. No way could I currently afford or justify the expense so......
Coming back to the original two options, I opted for image quality over IS.

I'm sure there will be the odd occasion when IS would be useful but life is full of compromise.

Peter 13wrote:

Steve Balcombewrote:
Digpics wrote:
Yes yes yes and yes again. That's more than two stops faster than the
other lenses you are considering and that is what you need. IS is
of no value whatsoever for moving subjects.

I was originally thinking I could use the 70-300 IS or the 70-200
versions for this purpose, however, I am hearing the aperature range
may be a serious limitatioin with these lenses.

Aperatures like f/2.8 or even f/4 on a telephoto lens create very
shallow DOP. You have to see it to believe it. You can also take a
look here:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

So even for moving subjects, fast telephoto lenses might be of
limited use unless you really known what you are doing, where and how
to focus, etc. Slight back/front focussiing problems can ruin your
picture completely even at f/4. This is what happened to me and I
sent my camera for recalibration.

IS can help increase the DOP.

Let me be sure I am not misunderstanding you. Are you recommending an f/4 lens with IS in preference to a very fast focusing f/1.8 for indoor sports? Because if you are...

And yes, you have to know what you are doing - low light action photography is not a beginner pursuit. But everyone has to learn and it'll be a lot better in the long run to have the right tools. Especially when, as in this case, the right tool is cheaper than the wrong tool!

Just as a general rule are hand-holdable speeds achievable under sunny skies? Cloudy skies? Let's talk 200mm for an easy comparison between the two lenses, but also at 280 (1.4x TC). A previous post indicated about 1/500 would be required on a crop body to hand-hold. Is this achievable under sunny skies? Cloudy? Light shade?

I know this is subjective and depends on the photographer, but I am trying to make a similar decision. I will primarily be hand-holding the camera during daylight (in sunny San Diego) for most pictures. A minority of pics will be morning/evening where I can use a tripod. I realize in the latter case the L glass is the way to go, but since most of my pics will be hand-held I'd like to get an idea of what speeds I can probably handle to determine if I should go with the L or the IS.

At what focal length does the 70-300 switch from f4 to f5.6?

Kurt

Steve Balcombewrote:

I will probably upgrade to the IS version one day too, but it is
quite common in these discussions (I have discovered!) for people to
insist that the 70-200 IS is the only possible choice and that
ignores the fact that most people don't have unlimited funds. The
70-200/4 non-IS and the 70-300 IS are currently very similar prices
(the differential is reduced by the cashback) but the 70-200 IS is
around double the price. At one retailer I just checked, nett of
cashback, the prices are £309, £348 and £629 respectively.

So you and I both have had to choose a lens that is affordable now,
with the prospect of upgrading later. I've already explained some of
the reasons for my choice elsewhere in this thread so I won't repeat
all that. But another is that I have a definite plan to buy a 300
f/4L IS next year. The £300 I have saved by buying the 70-200 non-IS
will bring the 300/4 closer, perhaps by several months. And the 300/4
will change the role of the 70-200 in my bag - I will no longer be
putting a TC on it and struggling for reach, something that I accept
will be one of the short term consequences of not choosing the 70-300
IS.

I guess the point I want to ram home is that there are many different
reasons for choosing a lens and IS is just one of them. It is not
necessarily the deciding factor and wasn't for me.

Yes, exactly - there are many different reasons for choosing a lens. For me, the most important thing was to have relatively compact and facile telephoto zoom lens with decent IQ, long reach and IS. I didn't want to take out tripod over and over always, when the light is anything but not perfect. Also I never planned to play around with teleconverters, 'cause I like to be still ready to shoot. And it's also pushing the price of 70-200 f4L much higher ($820, B&H, incl. current rebate!). There's no way to pay so much for 450mm long non-stabilized lens.

Anyway - I really understand that my reasons can be completly unimportant for someone else. Can't wait for weather sealed 70-200 IS...

Take care!

The Leica D-Lux 8 is a gently updated version of the D-Lux 7, bringing the latest interface and styling cues to match the Q3 and reminding us how much we like a good enthusiast compact.

The Pentax 17 is the first Pentax film camera in two decades. It's built around a half-frame film format and includes design cues inspired by previous Pentax models. Is the experience worth the price of admission? We tested it to find out.

Nikon has announced the Z6III, its third-generation mid-range full-frame mirrorless camera. A new 24MP sensor brings speed to every part of the camera, and all the key features have been upgraded.

The newest version of Panasonic's Micro Four Thirds video-oriented flagship camera has arrived, and it includes features like internal ProRes RAW recording, 32-bit Float audio capture, phase-detect autofocus, and compatibility with Panasonic's Real-Time LUT system and Lumix Lab app.

The Lumix S9 is Panasonic's newest full-frame mirrorless camera. It allows users to create their own custom looks for out-of-camera colors and is the first full-frame Lumix camera aimed squarely at social media content creators.

What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.