Lens dilemma (1 Viewer)

[Vectis Birder]

I am going to buy a Christmas present to myself, a new zoom lens.

My choice is either the Canon 70-200 f4 L series zoom or the Canon 70-300 f4.5 USM IS zoom. The L series lens is, well, an L series and should be good, but I would quite like the extra reach of the 70-300 plus it has IS as well.

I am leaning towards the 70-300 as it is also cheaper than the L lens, £389 as opposed to £449, but then I think about the L-series and lean back again!

So, please, help me decide. Given the choice, which one would you go for?

 

[Roy C]

I am going to buy a Christmas present to myself, a new zoom lens.

My choice is either the Canon 70-200 f4 L series zoom or the Canon 70-300 f4.5 USM IS zoom. The L series lens is, well, an L series and should be good, but I would quite like the extra reach of the 70-300 plus it has IS as well.

I am leaning towards the 70-300 as it is also cheaper than the L lens, £389 as opposed to £449, but then I think about the L-series and lean back again!

So, please, help me decide. Given the choice, which one would you go for?

I have the 70-200 f4 and I can say that it takes a 1.4 tc very well, this would take you up to 280mm if required (for what it is worth, the 70-300 will not even take a Canon tc). I need not tell you about the IQ of the 70-200 f4 as it is widely known as one of the very best Canon zooms.

 

[JohnZ]

Just my tuppence worth. I think this is a no brainer. The 70-200 f4 is quite a bit better than the other lens you have mentioned. The IQ will knock spots off of the 70-300.

 

[Pluvius]

go for the 70-200 f4 I was leant one recently and its the next lens I buy.

 

[twolf]

From what I've seen the 70-200/4 is better even with the TC1.4 on, let alone the bear lens.
Have a look for yourself (roll the mouse over for comparison):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...omp=358&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=5&API=0
Build wise and in terms of AF performance I don't think you can even compare the two.
Really a no brainer

 

[postcardcv]

I'm another very happy 70-200 f4 user, it's a cracking lens I'm sure you'd be very pleased with if you do go for one.

 

[Vectis Birder]

Thanks for the replies so far. I am definitely leaning towards the L lens. I'm not in a rush to get one, it might have to wait until after Christmas so I don't clean out my account in one hit.

 

[Lewie]

Thanks for the replies so far. I am definitely leaning towards the L lens. I'm not in a rush to get one, it might have to wait until after Christmas so I don't clean out my account in one hit.

I am fairly new to digital photography, and I do not mean to offend anyone, but why buy the Canon L 70-200 and a converter? Why not put out another $400 and get the Canon L 100-400. It is all personal choice, but I have never been a fan of the 70-200 range of zooms - always wanting more or less zoom.

Now that I have offended everyone, what are the opinions on the Canon L 100-400 and how it compares to Sigma 150-500?

 

[JohnZ]

Lewie, The cost of photographic equipment in this country is a lot more than in the U.S.
That is why I have bought all of my lenses in the U.S.
A Canon 100-400L in this country costs over $1400 USD, $1440 approx., due to the weakness of the pound sterling. Unless a Canon 70-200 f4 costs at least $1000 USD in the States then your theory is incorrect.

 

[paul goode]

Another vote for the 70-200. A cracking little lens :t:

 

[Lewie]

Lewie, The cost of photographic equipment in this country is a lot more than in the U.S.
That is why I have bought all of my lenses in the U.S.
A Canon 100-400L in this country costs over $1400 USD, $1440 approx., due to the weakness of the pound sterling. Unless a Canon 70-200 f4 costs at least $1000 USD in the States then your theory is incorrect.

John:

I meant the difference between the 70-200 and the converter versus the 100-400.

Per BH photo I show that the difference is $440.
L 70-200 $580
Televonverter 280
-----
$860
====

L 100-400, after rebate $1,300.

Naturally, most persons will use the converter with multiple lenses. For many persons, a 70-200 lens may just the thing. I take mainly photos of birds, and a little of landscapes; therefore I usually want a wide-ange or a more powerful telephoto.

Sorry to hear that camera equipment costs much more in Europe. I have heard how much more binculars cost in Europe than in the U.S.

Lew

 

[Roy C]

Lewie, The cost of photographic equipment in this country is a lot more than in the U.S.
That is why I have bought all of my lenses in the U.S.
.

John, at today exchange rate of just under 1.5 $ to the £ the US prices are not looking so attractive. If you compare prices at B&H with the UK you will find that the UK prices is actually cheaper in a lot of instances. I was reading a thread only today where a guy in the states has just bought a lens from the UK because it was cheaper !
While the pound was hovering around 2 $ to the £ the states were attractive but over the last 30 years or so 1.5 to 1 has been more the norm - in the mid 1980's the pound and the Dollar were just about at parity 1-1, if that happens again our prices will be just about the cheapest going. I doubt if Kerso is so competitive at the moment.
Of course none of this means a lot to us if you buy UK stuff, we still have to stump up the same amount.

Also in the states you have to add on a state tax which varies from State to state but is typically 7% I think. Unlike our vat, the state tax is not shown in their prices.

As an example the 100-400 is $1399 + 7% would be $1432 (exc Canon rebate) at todays exchange rate this is £954. It is available for £939 in the UK so very similar.

p.s. Once retailers run out of current stock I would think that UK prices will be rising owing to the weaker pound. If you are in the market to buy a piece of non UK made kit, then now could be a good time to buy.

 

[twolf]

Lewey
I'm not sure what plans Vectis Birder has for the lens, but I doubt absolute range in one of them.
70-200 lenses are a completely different category than xxx-4/500mm zooms. And usually people buy them for very specific purpose.

I mentioned the TC simply to point out the difference in quality between the L lens and the consumer 70-300mm. Meaning it's much better.

In terms of prices your math is correct, but most of bird photographers already carry a TC in their bag, or prefer 3rd party alternatives (Kenko, Tamron. etc) which sell a lot cheaper.
But then again I must re-mention - you cannot compare lenses which are completely different.

 

[Vectis Birder]

I am fairly new to digital photography, and I do not mean to offend anyone, but why buy the Canon L 70-200 and a converter? Why not put out another $400 and get the Canon L 100-400. It is all personal choice, but I have never been a fan of the 70-200 range of zooms - always wanting more or less zoom.

Now that I have offended everyone, what are the opinions on the Canon L 100-400 and how it compares to Sigma 150-500?

Lol! No offence taken but I already have the 400mm f5.6 L, so I don't need a 100-400 zoom. I just wanted something shorter, beginning at 70mm and going up to 200/300 ish.

I tried out both lenses in the shop today. I took my camera in, got to see the big pics, and I was very impressed with the 70-300 (not to be confused with the frankly crap 75-300 or the earlier version of the 70-300) performance. The IS was great and, as I can't afford both the 70-200 AND a tc, I went with the 70-300. I did notice that the L lens was soft down the left side. Odd.

To be honest, while it is not an L-series, the 70-300 should suit my needs just fine. An L zoom can wait for another time and when I am richer.

Thank you to everyone, and please don't all give me a hard time because I went against your suggestions. o

 

[Lewie]

Lol! No offence taken but I already have the 400mm f5.6 L, so I don't need a 100-400 zoom. I just wanted something shorter, beginning at 70mm and going up to 200/300 ish.

I tried out both lenses in the shop today. I took my camera in, got to see the big pics, and I was very impressed with the 70-300 (not to be confused with the frankly crap 75-300 or the earlier version of the 70-300) performance. The IS was great and, as I can't afford both the 70-200 AND a tc, I went with the 70-300. I did notice that the L lens was soft down the left side. Odd.

To be honest, while it is not an L-series, the 70-300 should suit my needs just fine. An L zoom can wait for another time and when I am richer.

Thank you to everyone, and please don't all give me a hard time because I went against your suggestions. o

Vectis,

How do you like the L 400? Is a person better off with the L 400 than an
L 100-400? Would the L 400 provide high quality pictures than an L 100-400 zoom? I do not know, but will take all the advice I can get.

Best of luck with your new lens!

Lew

 

[Vectis Birder]

Vectis,

How do you like the L 400? Is a person better off with the L 400 than an
L 100-400? Would the L 400 provide high quality pictures than an L 100-400 zoom? I do not know, but will take all the advice I can get.

Best of luck with your new lens!

Lew

Hi Lew, I love my 400L, it is a super lens. It is pin sharp and absolutely superb. The zoom is far more flexible, of course, but I didn't need one at the time.

 

[postcardcv]

Vectis,

How do you like the L 400? Is a person better off with the L 400 than an
L 100-400? Would the L 400 provide high quality pictures than an L 100-400 zoom? I do not know, but will take all the advice I can get.

Best of luck with your new lens!

Lew

If you have a look through the Canon section you'll find plenty of threads discussing/comparing these two lenses. Both are excellent, both can deliver great images, it's personal preference as to which suits you best.

 

[Highcountry]

I bought a 70-200 f4 L IS this past summer and it is a wonderful lens.:t:

 

[Jaff]

I can give you the benefit of personal expeience here (well sort of).

My dad had the 70-300mm before he got his 100-400mm and whenever he, myself and my brother Paul would all go out he'd always borrow Paul's 70-200mm (the IS model) using his own Kenko 1.4x. The 70-200mm with 1.4x TC still had a better IQ than the 70-300mm and was a bit faster too if I remember right. Not to mention with the 70-200mm you have a stellar lens without the TC capable of doing a little bit of macro work an all.

Regards. :t:
Jaff

 

[Vectis Birder]

Weeeellll...after having a go with the 70-300mm over Saturday and this morning, I decided that I really wished that I HAD gone for the L-series. So, it was off back to Jessops just now and an exchange plus an extra £50 for the L lens.
They had a couple so I made sure I didn't get the one that is soft on the left!

I am now totally skint but pleased. Bread and water over Christmas I think!

So, I did eventually take everyone's advice. I can live without IS, I have for nearly 20 years now! We all make mistakes... o

Cheers everyone, and Merry Christmas.