Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

EF IS or non IS L lens

Z

Zoreke

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 26, 2010
69
0
Hi I need some advice, I want to buy a telephoto lens and I have two options in mind:

1. Canon 70-200 F4 L (non IS)
2. Canon 70-300 EF (IS)

Both are around the same price, I know L lenses have great image quality but I also know that IS is great for a telephoto lens...

I'm going to use this with my 40D body and I'm just a weekend photographer :),

I'd love to get the best image quality on my limited budget...

Any advice will be apreciated

Thanks

:)
 
My 70-200 f/4L was the sharpest lens I ever owned. Sold it because I needed f/2.8 for indoor events, and I've missed the sharpness and contrast of the f/4 ever since.

I 100% recommend the f/4 L. Image Stabilization is nice to have, but you just can't beat the IQ from the f/4 L.
 
Last edited:
You're a weekend photographer... of what? Do you really need IS? Wouldn't a tripod, especially for better image quality, be better for you? The 70-200 lens should return much better image quality, especially when the lens is used at its maximum aperture.
 
I 100% recommend the f/4 L. Image Stabilization is nice to have, but you just can't beat the IQ from the f/4 L.[/QUOTE]


Thanks I think that's what I'm getting.

You're a weekend photographer... of what? Do you really need IS? Wouldn't a tripod, especially for better image quality, be better for you? The 70-200 lens should return much better image quality, especially when the lens is used at its maximum aperture.[/QUOTE]

You are right, I have a monopod and I can carry it around... I shoot people on the streets, but I like them to look natural (I live in Mexico and the streets are an endless sourvce of imges) I think a telephoto can help to be less noticed by the people I'm shooting.

Thanks for the help.
 
I would go for the extra 100mm. It means more to me to get that extra closeness over a little bit more sharpness.

I have a 70-200 2.8 IS L, but, if I were in the market for a lens in that category, I would probably go for the 70-300 4.5-5.6 DO IS.
 
My vote goes for the 70-200 f/4 also.

And as suggested by MattSepeta, if you can spend a bit more for the I.S. version (ok, a lot more) then go for it.

I've first owned the 70-200 f/4, then 70-200 f/2.8, and now the 70-200 f/4 I.S. and the f/4 I.S. is the better one.
 
70-200 F4 all day long wins that fight. Honestly the 70-300 doesn't have the greatest reviews and IMO is over priced for what you get. I would get the 55-250mm over the 70-300 in all honesty. (I did get the 55-250 over the 70-300 lol)

I am no professional and just wanted something decent with a longer reach. Image quality is in the eye of the beholder, I am pretty happy with the 55-250 right now and didn't want to swing more for the 70-200 F4 when I knew I would want the IS at that range.

Also, monopods don't really steady the camera enough. It won't be like your monopod is the "IS" for the lens if you will. It basically makes it so you don't have to hold up a camera and keeps it at a level height. IF your worried about the IS and using slower shutter speeds, I would recommend you a nice tripod like the Manfrotto 190XPROB and then whatever ever style head you prefer. Don't skimp on the tripod, all that expensive gear is sitting on it, last thing you would want is a $20 cheapy that falls over or breaks and sends you $800+ dollars of gear off it.
 
CW Jones said:
70-200 F4 all day long wins that fight. Honestly the 70-300 doesn't have the greatest reviews and IMO is over priced for what you get. I would get the 55-250mm over the 70-300 in all honesty. (I did get the 55-250 over the 70-300 lol)

I am no professional and just wanted something decent with a longer reach. Image quality is in the eye of the beholder, I am pretty happy with the 55-250 right now and didn't want to swing more for the 70-200 F4 when I knew I would want the IS at that range.

Also, monopods don't really steady the camera enough. It won't be like your monopod is the "IS" for the lens if you will. It basically makes it so you don't have to hold up a camera and keeps it at a level height. IF your worried about the IS and using slower shutter speeds, I would recommend you a nice tripod like the Manfrotto 190XPROB and then whatever ever style head you prefer. Don't skimp on the tripod, all that expensive gear is sitting on it, last thing you would want is a $20 cheapy that falls over or breaks and sends you $800+ dollars of gear off it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the help I think I'll save some more for the 70-200 L IS, a friend has it, I have tried it and it's awesome... As a designer it is hard to put money on photo gear that I don't really use to make a lot of $$ of, but it is a nice hobby.

And I do have a nice manfrotto tripod with a nice trigger 360 degree manfrotto head which is really nice. But I think I want the IS for those times when you are just shooting handheld.

OK back to work to save some more for that L IS.

Thanks for the help.
:D
:D
 
If you are taking candid shots on the street, I would think that a small non-descript lens like the 55-250 with IS would be a benefit. The last thing you want to have is a tripod in a situation like that, and a large white lens doesn't really help either. :confused:

The existing 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM non-L that's black, which I think was your second choice, might be the best solution in your situation as well. It's a great combination of image quality, reach, price, build, etc... I have it, and it takes great pictures.
 
Last edited:
Zoreke said:
Thanks for the help I think I'll save some more for the 70-200 L IS, a friend has it, I have tried it and it's awesome... As a designer it is hard to put money on photo gear that I don't really use to make a lot of $$ of, but it is a nice hobby.

And I do have a nice manfrotto tripod with a nice trigger 360 degree manfrotto head which is really nice. But I think I want the IS for those times when you are just shooting handheld.

OK back to work to save some more for that L IS.

Thanks for the help.
:D
:D
Click to expand...

Ya I am studying design in college right now and shooting a 30D with just some inexpensive lens'. Funny thing is I am going to sell most of my kit just to get a smaller compact camera like the G12 or something. Just a bit more practical and don't have to deal with lenses and a huge bag to carry around. lol
 
A few points:

-the 55-250 is definitely better than the 70-300 (non-L)

-you may not be considering this now, but in terms of resale value, the L lenses basically don't depreciate (that much at least) and it is money that is better spent long term

-you might be a perfect candidate to get the new 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L lens that is coming out in the next few weeks (it supposedly is already available in europe) - seriously take a look at it

Good luck!
 
jbg232 said:
you might be a perfect candidate to get the new 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L lens that is coming out in the next few weeks (it supposedly is already available in europe) - seriously take a look at it
Click to expand...


It's around 3x the cost of either of the two lenses the OP mentioned, so I doubt it's one for consideration.
 
For my Canon 50D, I've the 70-200 f4 L IS, Tokina 116 ATX Pro, and couple kit lens, and will say that the 70-200 is an excellent lens - great for portraits, landscapes, etc... but keep in mind that it is fairly good sized, and therefore it most likely will draw some attention to it [size + white color]. Some people may be taken aback or such to have that canon shooting at them... ;) Something a bit smaller and in black might be better to acquire more candid shots - just a thought. However... the reach of the 70-200 would also allow you to be further away from some of your subjects - guess it depends on your positioning, the amount of crowds, etc. Curious - which part of Mexico? I've spent fair amount of time in Monterrey and San Luis Potosi, and really enjoy and like SLP, excellent people and place [but haven't been brave enough to take my good camera there,,, yet :eek: ].
 
Thanks for the help, I think I'll save more for the 70-200 4.0 L IS... I just wanted to get it next weekt aht I'm going to visit US... it will have to wait.

Thanks all forr the help.

:D
 
It sounds like you've got your mind made up on the best option! I bought the 55-250 IS and it actually produced very high quality images. For what you're doing this very well might be the best option for you. I ended up selling mine because I didn't use it often, but I still liked it.

Maybe you should pick up an excellent used copy of the 55-250mm for $165-180. They have them here all the time: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=14

Then as you use your telephoto more and want something that really kicks some butt, sell it for $120, and buy the 70-200mm L f/4 IS!

Just a thought...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back