Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or EF 70-200mm f/4L USM?

Question

Which lens should I buy?

I like the 75-300 because of its upper range and it has IS. I like the 70-200 because it's an L, doesn't telescope, and has a non-rotating front element. The difference in price is negligible ($557 vs. $660 on amazon).

I don't intend on selling pictures, but I don't want poor quality photos either. Basically, it comes down to IS with longer range vs. L.

If you've used either of these lenses, please post your likes/dislikes.

Answer 1

Depends on what you need the 300mm for. If you need a fast lens like for sports I would have to say the 70-200mm because the aperature does not change as you zoom in. If you dont really need speed but want stablization the 75-300mm will be a big help if you have an unsteady hand. But I will warn you that if you will be using the 300mm a lot you will be editing lots of pictures just because of distorations. If you want "quality" and you dont need IS, like me IS isnt a main priorty for me so I saved up for just the 70-200mm f/2.8 L lens but speed was, I would recommond the 70-200mm f/4 just because it takes amazing picture for only $500ish.

If you want the best picture quality, I would take a L lens over a IS lens anyday. Just as long as I can hold the lens still =)

Answer 2

I have been fortunate enought to own and use l series lenses, be warned once you do you will be hooked!

Image stabalization is nice,and I have that lens( 75-300 is), but nothing beats a steady hand. I would much rather have a lens I could stop down then the stabalization.
I am going to Alaska in may and am seriously considering the 70-200 l f2.8 IS and will sell my 75-300 if I do. I shoot a eos3 and a eos 20 d. If you are using a digital slr the 70-200 should be more than enough zoom especialy when you take into consideration the 1.6:1 image sensor factor. I would hold out for a 2.8 if at all possible it will be heavier, but worth it. It is not just a matter of low light shots the f2.8 arpeture will help improve autofocusing acuracy as well.

Answer 3

It really depends on what you will be photographing.
If you tend to do a lot of pan and shoot photography (e.g. running animals, flying birds, or cars in a motor speedway), you may want to lean toward the lens with the IS, assuming you have multiple stabilization settings (i.e. stabilize vertical shake only). If you are out shooting the snowy owl, you should be using a steady tripod instead of IS; but if no tripod is around, the IS will be your friend...but not sure if 300mm is going to be strong enough to reach that owl.
I do more landscape photography so a lot of my subjects don't move. I have a 100-400 F4.5L and it is rarely used over my shorter lenses. In the case of your choice, and as a landscape person, I would lean towards the L lens because I am more particular about edge-to-edge sharpness. I am only guessing, but it would seem like the shorter lens and with it being an L lens would win in that criteria. Any lens over 200mm basically sits in my cabinet unless there is a special need.

Answer 4

If you're going to be shooting in good lighting most of the time, the IS won't be an issue. From all the samples I've seen, the 75-300 is nowhere near as good as the L lens, image quality-wise.

There's really nothing that I dislike about my 70-200 f4L, except for the fact that it's not an f/2.8 with IS. The pictures it produces are very sharp, have excellent color and contrast. One of my favorite lenses.