UKC

'lo all

Ok canvassing some opinion here. I need a decent telephoto lens. I currently have an old 55-200mm inherited from the old man which is not very good at all, the build quality is terrible even for a kit lens and the optical quality isnt very good either!

I have narrowed it down to a choice of 2.

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS
or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS

Obviously one is an L series so in terms of build, optical quality and environmental sealing is going to be better across the board than the first. The dilemma is I could probably afford the 70-300 for christmas if I ask a few people to join forces on a present and chuck a bit of my own cash in or do I wait until early next year when I will have been able to save enough for the L series??

What to do, what to do? Has anyone got any experience with either?

In reply to D0dge:

I don't know the lenses or the price differential, but in general in a case like this, if you really will be able to afford and justify the dearer one, it's best to wait and get it. Otherwise, even with perfectly good shots from t'other one, you might ALWAYS be wondering....
And I guess the 70-300 won't be f/4 at 200mm unlike the 70-200?
Will you need the 300 end?
If you get the L Series, will you mollycoddle it too much?

These are the sorts of questions you need to consider.

In reply to D0dge:

I have a Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM for sale

(which is a different and better lens to the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS).

Will accept £495 inc P&P. All boxed and hood etc. In excellent condition.

Its a great lens and very compact. Retails at new c. £750.

Drop me a line if interested.

In reply to ChrisJD:

Thank you for the offer, I did look at the DO version but decided I would be better off shelling out a bit more for the 70-200 f/4 L.

Blue Straggler: yes those are pretty much the exact questions I was asking myself
I am not a particular mollycoddler of kit so it would certainly get used (mainly because if I spent that on a lens and didn't use it the missus would kill me :oD )

In reply to D0dge:

Funnily I bought the EF 70-300 USM IS and then exchanged it for a 70-200 f4 L (non IS).

I am not sre I made the right choice really although I love using the 70-200. I couldn't afford the IS version but bought ot on the basis that it's a reasonably fast lens (though not f2.8 fast!) you can up the ISO anyway. Optically it's lovely, build quality is great, and it's so smooth and fast.

The 70-300 I didn't really enjoy using greatly but I have to admit the IS was pretty astonishing in terms of what it acheieved. Also, it has a lot more reach than the 70-200, obviously. Build quality feels iffy but to be fair it wasn't bad. The main problem I found was that the IS absolutely gobbled up battery power and recharging became an issue. Which in hindsight was one of the reasons I went back from the IS to a non-IS lens. But I'm not sure that's a particularly valid reason.

I compared the two optically afterwards and the 70-200 is better in some respects, even on a PC screen. But the 70-300 gives great, sharp, result s.

To conclude, I love the 70-200 L but IS makes a hell of a difference. If I could afford the 70-200 L IS then I'd go for that in a shot.

In reply to JonC:

Ah superb, exactly the reply I was hoping for! Someone with experience of both (ish ) I've found the 70-200 for £600 (700 + 100 cashback b4 31/12) so I think it might be a collection of christmas money and the credit card. If I want the reach of the 300 I can always get the 1.4x extender.

In reply to D0dge:

L Glass. You know it makes sense

In reply to D0dge: go second hand......2.8 glass is nearly always looked after well.....

In reply to Dr Avid:

f2.8 is overrated cw f4. I mean its only a stop, and being f2.8 doesnt mean its a better lens by default.

The Canon f4 L range is a great balance of price, weight & size.

In reply to ChrisJD:

that was my thinking

In reply to ChrisJD:

I've had a play with the 2.8 at my local shop and although its a lovely lens i think it's gonna be a bit heavy to lug around the place. The f4 isnt light but its a lot better.Like you say a good balance of price, weight, size and quality as well.

In reply to D0dge:
>The f4 isnt light but its a lot better.Like you say a good balance of price, weight, size and quality as well.

I know, I have one. Its a great lens.

In reply to D0dge:

I would say go for the 70-200 f4 IS. The weight and price advantage outweighs the difference over the 2.8, and i've heard the f4 is a bit sharper than the 2.8 too.

I would always go for L if you can, otherwise you might just end up selling the 70-300 after a few months and buying the L anyway.

In reply to D0dge: I have the Canon EF 100-300, which is a superb lens, but I have read on the net that it is the only decent Cannon lens optics on any tele zoom they make, I don't know if thats true? But it may be a bit slow for your purposes, being a f4.5 lens?