Better Lens??

[Liz22012]

Which is a better overall lens the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens?

[Skirball]

Between 70 and 200 mm the 70-200 is the better lens, providing you don't need image stabilization.  But if you need IS or longer than 200mm then obviously the 70-300 is a better call (I'm assuming you're referring to the non-L version - the black one, not the white).

Personally, I'd recommend the 70-200, but it's not universally better.  It depends on your needs:

70-200

• Professional build, rugged, water resistant
• Better optics, better image quality
• Constant aperture

70-300

Longer Range

Image Stabilization

[Liz22012]

Yes the black one. I do a lot of stills. Do you think it would be an issue not to have the IS?

[ScottyP]

The lack of IS would not be a big issue at the 70mm wide end. It would be increasingly important as you get towards the 200mm long end. If you are shooting stills and can use a tripod it is basically irrelevant. There is no camera shake on a tripod.

I have the 70-200 with IS but I seldom rely on the IS. As you may already know he rule of thumb on shutter apeed is that without IS, you avoid camera shake blur if you shoot a shutter speed that is at least as fast as the reciprocal of the focal length. So like at 70mm you need a shutter speed of 1/70th or faster. At 100mm you need shutter of 1/100th or faster. At 200mm you need the shutter to be 1/200th or faster. IS would let you break that rule and shoot a lslower shutter speed, but I am usually shooting fast enough shutter to not need the IS.

Note too that Image Stabilization only addresses camera shake blur. IS does nothing to address subject motion blur - only a faster shutter speed helps with that (by freezing the action). If you are shooting something moving you likely need a fast enough shutter that you won't be able to lower shutter speed enough to break that reciprocal shutter speed rule and benefit from IS anyway.

The white lens will be much sharper and will give nicer color, etc. Consider a tripod if you need to shoot slower shutters.

[Liz22012]

Thanks I appreciate your input.

[Skirball]

Hard to say on IS.  I tend to push the limit a lot on shutter speed, so I like IS.  Although I shoot with primes a lot that don't have them, so I get by.  It really depends on what type of photography you do.  These lenses are very popular with sports and action photographers, where you typically need fast shutter speeds to keep up with fast subjects.  In that situation IS doesn't really do much.

There is an IS version of the 70-200 f/4, though it cost significantly more.  Note that the optics are even higher regarded than those in the non-IS version.  Canon is out of stock right now, but you could pick up a refurbished version for $880:

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/refurbished-lenses/ef-70-200mm-f-4l-is-usm-...

[Liz22012]

I do landscapes and animals. My concern on the non IS is this will all be done handheld.

[ebiggs1]

IMHO, I think the difference is significant.  The 70-200mm f4 in any of it's forms is worlds better than the 70-300mm (the black one).

In the first place the 70-200mm is a full on pro level lens with all the featuers that brings like weather sealing and non-comparable build quality.  Not to mention the 70-300mm if esentially a stop slower at f5.6.

Remember IS improves you.  It does not improve the lens.

[Liz22012]

True. Thank you.