Is this better than the 70-300 IS NON-L lens? I am thinking of upgrading but do not know it it is worth it or if I should just get a 400mm prime.
1746180
Here is a comparison of the two: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Ca;mera=453&Sample;=0&FLI;=4&API;=1&LensComp;=358&CameraComp;=453&SampleComp;=0&FLIComp;=4&A;PIComp=1
1746181
Absolutely! I had the non L version and gave it to my daughter in law. The L version is sharper with better color saturation and is better built. The front doesn't rotate which is important if you have a polarizer on. It's also heavier and more expensive, but you get what you pay for! Haven't used the 400 prime, but the zoom range is very handy. Hope this helps.
1746182
I don't have experience with those other lenses but I can tell you it is an amazing lens and worth every penny. I use it to shoot weddings and also do a lot of artistic shooting with it of flowers and stuff like that. The background blur is incredible.
1746183
This is a tough question. My 70-300 f/4-5.6L is my main outdoor walkabout lens for my 5D. The lens is super smooth. I like the twist to zoom much better than push-pull. I like being able to reframe a picture *right now* without needing to carry and swap lenses. I appreciate the quality of the image at the extremes of the zoom. I'm careful about dust and moisture, but I know the seals on my L are the best you can get. If the lens will be *once in a while* lens and super image quality is not crucial, Canon makes very nice non-L lenses. For me, when I stepped up to the 5D, I figured it and my work deserved better lenses and I now only use L lenses. If you need super-telephoto, then primes (and maybe a EF Extender) and some kind of tripod or monopod are the way to go with as many high-quality pixels as you can afford. Then you can use cropping to reframe. Without more information about what you are trying to do, it is hard to be more specific.
1746184
I have been using both the EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM and the EF400mm/5.6L USM lenses. I mostly do birding and other animal photography, as a hobby. The EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM has more flexibility in ranges and the image stablization is deffinately a plus. The EF400/5.6L USM dosen't have the image stablization, but has the longer range and can be used with the 1.4x and 2x extenders, while the EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM is not listed as compatible with either extender. I find both lenses produce good quality pictures. Usualy I use either a monopod or tripod. I have not used the 70-300 IS NON-L so I do not know how it compares with the others. RB I have been using both the EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM and the EF400mm/5.6L USM lenses. I mostly do birding and other animal photography, as a hobby. The EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM has more flexibility in ranges and the image stablization is deffinately a plus. The EF400/5.6L USM dosen't have the image stablization, but has the longer range and can be used with the 1.4x and 2x extenders, while the EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM is not listed as compatible with either extender. I find both lenses produce good quality pictures. Usualy I use either a monopod or tripod. I have not used the 70-300 IS NON-L... » Read More I have been using both the EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM and the EF400mm/5.6L USM lenses. I mostly do birding and other animal photography, as a hobby. The EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM has more flexibility in ranges and the image stablization is deffinately a plus. The EF400/5.6L USM dosen't have the image stablization, but has the longer range and can be used with the 1.4x and 2x extenders, while the EF70-300mm/4-5.6L IS USM is not listed as compatible with either extender. I find both lenses produce good quality pictures. Usualy I use either a monopod or tripod. I have not used the 70-300 IS NON-L so I do not know how it compares with the others. RB « Show Less
1746185
Better than non-IS as others have said and worth every penny IMO! I love the flexibility of the telephoto zoom so I would prefer this over the prime 400. Good luck with your decision...
1746186
Yes, much better. Better optics, better sharpness and color transmission, better weather sealing. Heavier, and more conspicuous. You might consider the 100-400 IS L lens. I switched from that because I got tired of carrying it around. Which is a problem with a 400 mm IS prime. Good luck. JWK
1746187
In my opinion L-series lenses are all significantly better than their non-L counterparts, and for the examples we had, the L-series lens was much better. A 400 mm L-series prime lens would serve a more specialized niche than a zoom, so your intended use would decide.
1773306
I have the Oly 45 and 75, and the panasonic 25 and 12. The 75 is regarded and one of the finest lens around, and its very sharp, but its $900, and the focal length isn't always practical. For the money, the 45mm is my favorite. Its inexpensive and very sharp. When you hold it in your hand, honestly, it looks a little cheep but the results are excellent.
36984
I was in a similar situation, and after trying all the options for a few weeks decided on the primes mostly for size and weight reasons. This lens is tiny for an f/2.8 zoom, but it is big and heavy compared to most other m4/3 lenses. UPDATE: After my latest vacation, constantly switching between primes, I've reconsidered my decision. I sold two of my primes and got the 12-40 again.
1871181
There is such a wide range of lenses. The 70-200 II IS is a winner that will work well in low light. If you are in a well-lit situation then this 70-300 is a great lens with more reach and lighter weight plus less cost.
473926
I'm getting ready to order the 400mm. I already have the 70-200L 2.8 IS and if I wanted the extra reach with zoom, I could put my 1.4x teleconverter on it, making it a [roughly] 100-280 f4.0. I don't have the 100-400 to compare, but I'd guess the sharpness is about the same between the 100-400 and the 70-200 + 1.4x. I still wouldn't have the reach between 280-400 but I'd have the sharpness when I need it. I can always attempt to move my feet to frame a subject with a prime if I'm too close. Read the reviews and decide for yourself.
473928
I have owned both lenses, still have the 400 prime. It focuses faster and more accurately, is sharper and light. With good technique and the right settings on your camera the results are pleasing. I hated the push/pull zoom of the 100-400. The only thing I miss is the IS, but if you spend most of your time photographing birds in flight you don't use IS anyway. I bought it used for $1030 and it is a gem.
1850113
Yes, is it worth it. My opinion is no. I actually returned my lens and purchased 3 primes for around the same price range. I had the lens for about 2 weeks and returned it for a 50mm1.8, 85mm 1.8 and 28mm 1.8 and do not regret it at all. Total for all 3 lens 1410.85. And I love them.
1041292
I agree with the 35 F1.4 response. It is a very sharp lens and with the sale, it's priced great. WELL worth the $.
597334
thanks tom. took your advise bought the 15-85. all i can say the image the quality is superb for a non l lense. thank you for recommending this lens.
466982
I don't have the 200 f/2.8, but I do have the 70-200 f/4, and the 300 f/4. The 300 is an excellent prime lens. I think the primary difference is the light gathering capacity, and I can live with that.
1319767
I'm not an expert just a photo hobby guy. But i believe there might be a second generation image stabilization on the 300 mm lens. Plus the obvious better zoom capacity. My 200 does a pretty good job at getting indoor pictures at a basketball game. I have to set the right aperture and ISO at first but it works for me. Depends on your need for the additional zoom. Good luck
1413084
You lose very little with this lens vds 70-200. The gain is the extra reach and wide angle, it a major upgrade. Having said that , and given the high $$$, I'd wait for the new model. New Model? I suspect so. Everyone, including Canon, is 'out-of-stock'. Couple that with Canon's receent announcment (July 2009) that they have a new IS that will be in 'interchangable' lenses by the end of 2009, it is not a surprise they stopped producing the 28-300mm so they could clear out the stock.I use the XTi- 40D and now the 5D mark II. The glass makes the picture.
2240582
I've been using the 17-85mm IS USM with my cameras for several years - love it. I have not used this lens, but you can find the 17-85 used for several hundred dollars cheaper than the 17-40L and it is a more versatile lens.
2096569
the only differences between the two lenses are: 1) focal length and 2) price. The 18-300 is approx. $150 more than the 18-200. If you are shooting sports or wildlife, and can afford the higher price, I would definitely go with the 18-300 for the longer reach. However, I personally own the 18-200 and love it for 98% of the shooting I do
1150132
135L exceeds the 200L II in almost every respect. Contrast, sharpness, etc. The perspective one achieves with the 135 length is lovely. Rent them both if you're on the fence that much. I purchased the 70-200 F4L IS for event & wedding photography, and eventually sold it for the 200L II; every time I was using the 70-200, I was at the far end, and the prime is sharper, lighter, offers the extra stop (vs. the f4), etc. My 135L has been with me for years, is rarely matched in performance, and would be the last thing to go in my kit.
568548
200 isn't a lot more reach, but it was enough to make the decision for me. If you're concerned about weight and bulk, I'd say stick to the 45-150. Someday you can get the 100-300mm for serious reach. I think both lenses are good, so the decision boils down to personal preference.
1069243
I own both. This is sharper and faster to focus than the 70-300. With either lens, "faster" is not a consideration. Both lenses are sharpest at f8 and require plenty of bright light. BTW, the lens hood from the 70-300 works on this version for those wondering...