Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM v Canon 70-200 F4 L IS USM Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM v Canon 70-200 F4 L IS USM

Nov 12 2006: Tested here are two lenses each with a signficant "fan" base. The 70-300IS seems to have recovered well from its early "vertical orientation" issue and is a very well-liked telezoom. Most opt for it over the better built "DO" variation, and I know some around the various forums who have even rid themselves of their 70-200f2.8L/100-400L zooms for this lighter-weight and good performing EF lens. It offers tremendous focal range versatility, good image quality, image stabilization, a relatively small size and weight, and all at a reasonable price [$560 B&H]. The 70-200f4IS [$1250 B&H] has only recently been released but is gaining a reputation of being one of the best optical gems available in Canon mount. The build is classic "L", the AF is speedy and silent, the image quality outstanding, the size is fairly small and lightweight, and to top it all off, offers the best image stabilization unit Canon has yet released alllowing up to 4 stops of handholding ability. Granted, the EF lens is only 45% the cost of the L, but many are still asking: Just HOW DO these 2 lenses fare against one another? View all the test images and decide for yourself.

CONCLUSION:
***Get the 70-300IS if you VALUE MOST: price-value, ideal travel tele, most convenience, good overall image quality, inconspicious "black".
JUDGMENT: CUM LAUDE [With Praise]

***Get the 70-200F4IS if you VALUE MOST: optimal image quality (even with TC), optimal build, swift and silent ring USM and FTM, attention-grabbing "white".
JUDGMENT: SUMMA CUM LAUDE [With Highest Praise]

01	02	03	04
05	06	07	Test1
Test2	Test3	Test4 [Border]	Test5 [Handheld]

post a comment

lightrules		18-Feb-2009 15:44
Steve, I'd recommend the 100-400 IS actually, for animals. Otherwise, if the animals are more static, then go with the f4 IS. If the animals are moving, then the f2.8. Best regards!

SteveG		18-Feb-2009 12:43
Thank you for another informative revue, as much as i would love a 70-200 F2.8 IS it out of my reach, reading your revues i am trying to decide between the 70-200 F4 IS and 70-200 F2.8 non IS, the majority of my amatuer photography is of animals in varying light conditions, which would you recommend and why?

lightrules		17-Nov-2007 01:20
Mike, have a look here http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/bigzoomtest

Mike		17-Nov-2007 00:37
Nice test, Lightrules. Have you tried the 70-200F4 IS with the 2x? If it gave similar IQ at 400mm to the 70-300IS at 300mm, it might be a nice alternative to the 100-400 (having F4 at 200mm and in lower light situations).

Guest		08-Nov-2007 18:43
Thanks for doing the hard work... Excellent real life comparison of a common lense dilema... I actually bought the 7-2L + 1.4x Even at 280mm @ 5.6 the f4 L is stunning. For me a much better proposition than the 7-3IS as IS it not something I often need but I always appreciate a razor sharp image. Thanks again.

lightrules		06-Jun-2007 19:52
Sorry Stefano, I have no idea where to begin in answering your "questions". You can email me and if possible, shorten and summarize your main questions in the email. Thank you.

lightrules		31-May-2007 03:10
Greetings. You have a very nice lens in the 1755IS, and your 350D is a good body. Regarding the 7-3IS, it is a very good telezoom at its price-point and I recommend it especially for travel and for a lightweight purpose. It is not as good optically as the 7-2f4IS, but it is still a very good optic. So for travel I think it is ideal, but for weddings, I don't think it's your best option. You could possibly get the 7-3IS for travel, but pick up a fast prime (in fact your 100f2 is nice) for weddings. As for the 350D and 30D issue, there is quite a jump in focusing accuracy and precision with the 30D from the 350D, and it has other benefits as well. So I would recommend the switch. If you had a 20D already, I would say the 30D is not worth the jump, but with the 350D I think it is. If you want to email me we can discuss this further. Take care and enjoy the light.

lightrules		19-May-2007 16:30
KRob, it's hard to say, and it's harder to say whether this is a universal issue or just copy-to-copy. I'm not seeing it with my copy to the degree as yours, though there is a very slight drop-off in IQ at MFD and 200mm. But this might be something you'll need Canon to look at. After all, it should be under warranty to have it checked out. Why not simply send it in with a detailed explanation of your concern?

kroba4		19-May-2007 16:14
Would value your opinion- it seems to be a case of spherical aberation combined with slight back-focus? http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=23193922&page=2

lightrules		18-May-2007 20:56
I don't know if I've shot many shots at "precisely" the MFD with the 7-2f4IS, but I have shot at close subjects and the sharpness is at a very high level. I'll take a look at your thread though.

kroba4		18-May-2007 20:48
Hi Lightrules, Have you tried using the 70-200 4.0 IS at minimum focussing distance? I have struggled with my copy as have a couple of others on dpreview: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=23237903 Any thoughts much apprecieated. Cheers!

lightrules		23-Apr-2007 04:28
You lose 1 stop with the 1.4xTC, and you lose 2 stops with the 2xTC. The Kenko Pro 1.4x is your best bet. I would also tape the 3 left pins. IS is not affected by the TC, but AF is. So again, tape the pins and try to shoot in sufficient light.

Guest		22-Apr-2007 22:24
hi there, do the IS and AF work fine with a kenko? how many stop will you loose?

lightrules		28-Mar-2007 05:37
Hi there, the 7-2f4IS is a superb lens. As for a 1.4xTC, you do not need to tape any pins; AF will work just fine. Enjoy.

csp1204		28-Mar-2007 03:23
Thank you for your great work.. I am leaning more toward getting 70-200mm F4 IS simply because it is an outstanding lens and really not that much "bigger" than 70-300mm... Can you help clarify one thing? It seems Kenko 1.4TC is the one to get. Question is: does it need to tape the left 3 pins for AF to work? Since it is F4, with 1.4TC, it becomes f5.6 max, isn't it ok for AF to work?? Thanks.. C.S.

lightrules		22-Mar-2007 04:19
In terms of AF, the L is clearly better. Is the 7-3IS good enough? Probably for most general applications (it has micro USM), but in absolute terms, the ring USM and FTM of the L is much better.

Leo Nilva		22-Mar-2007 03:23
I'm considering the non-IS 70-200 f/4l and the 70-300IS and I can't make a decision, both are good lenses and I'm not sure I want to give up the sharpness and L quality for the new IS and extra reach. How do you compare the focusing of the 2 lenses, specifically high-speed AI-servo performance? Thanks Leo

lightrules		07-Mar-2007 01:17
Why NOT test f5.6 (wide open)? That's where most people want to see its performance. Every lens will be sharper 1 stop down. In EVERY lens comparison I do, I am always, first and foremost, wanting to see it perform wide open.

Tom J		07-Mar-2007 01:13
Interesting, but why on earth are you testing f5.6 with the 70-300? It's pretty common knowledge that you need to go to f8 with that lens to get reasonable quality. Could you do f8 comparisons? Thanks!

isogood		07-Feb-2007 08:06
hi intersting test, I have put some of mine here with the 70-200 L4 IS http://www.pbase.com/isogood/canon_70_200_l4_is&page=all

lightrules		12-Nov-2006 16:21
thw, the f4 non-IS takes a TC extremely well too, so if you don't need/want IS, that's a cheaper option.

hnliurui		12-Nov-2006 15:57
Isn't 70200F4LIS the sharpest zoom in the Canon line-up?

thw		12-Nov-2006 14:03
I am rather shocked that the teleconverter does little in degrading the optical quality of the 70-200 f/4L lens. Sigh... need to start saving up.

click on thumbnails for full image