[barbara]

Hi !

I have one 550 d

Somebody can help me about choice from 70-200 f/4 L IS USM and 70-300 L IS USM

I need for my travel ( no safari )

Thank you

[Guest]

[quote name='barbara' timestamp='1336670485' post='18099']

Hi !

I have one 550 d

Somebody can help me about choice from 70-200 f/4 L IS USM and 70-300 L IS USM

I need for my travel ( no safari )

Thank you

[/quote]

In short: If you really need a tele for travelling go for the 55-250 IS or 70-200 f/4 IS and add a kenko 1.4x extender to your kit (use only with 70-200). I think the 70-300 L is too heavy for travel. The optical difference is not worth discussing, since both lenses are very close and very good. Otherwise the choice depends on your needs. Here is my story:



I used to use the 70-200 f/4 IS on my 50D on numerous photo trips. Its image quality is spectacular, but on my recent trip to India I have hardly used it, mainly because it is not ideal for shooting portraits, which is my main interest. The reasons are:



1. I felt that even at 750g it was too big and too heavy compared to my 85mm 1.8

2. It attracted too much attention because of the white color

3. It irritated my subjects because of its size and color

4. only about 2% of my shots really required a focal length longer than 100mm



I therefore advise you to carefully consider for what kind of subjects you require a tele and how often you will shoot these subjects. The lesser you have to carry the more flexible and relaxed you are and the better your photos will come out. Believe me, I have lugged a 70-200 f/2.8 through the Himalayas only to find out later that I could have taken the same photos with much lesser lenses. BTW I supply an agencay and a gallery with with pictures, so technical quality is paramount to me. If you shoot portait, you probably can do better without a white lens anyway. Get a good 50, 85 or 100mm instead.



Generally I find a telezoom useful for landscapes, animals and for the few occasion when you really cant get closer or want to use compression. If these subjects constitute only a small percentage of your photography and you still want to carry a tele zoom get a 55-250 IS. Its light, optically solid and a much better lens for travel than the 70-200 or 70-300 if you don shoot tele all the time. (you may also consider the 70-300 non-L or Tamron 70-300, both are optically very good, but a little heavier)



I recommend the 70-200 f/4 with Kenko 1.4 if you are sure that a large percentage of your shots will be made at long focal length. The reason is that the 70-200 is more convenient to use than the 55-250 IS because of its internal zoom and focus and because it feels more robustly build. The better AF of the 70-200 will probably not be relevant to you, as your 550d is not exactly a capable camera when it comes to tracking subjects. Dont asume however that the plastic build quality of the 55-250 will be detrimental to its survivability. These little plastic lenses are surprisingly robust even though they dont feel like they are. The better build of the L lenses is not needed if you are somebody who treats her equipment well anyway. Remebmer , even an L lens will most likly not survive when you let it drop to the ground . It only has an advantage in rain or snow (because of weather sealing) or when you carelessly knock your lens around (I have to do that sometimes, to be ready to shoot or catch a subject)

[popo]

It really comes down to what you want to do. I've seen the 70-200/4 lenses as the poor man's f/2.8. Messing around fitting extenders in the field gets boring rapidly. If you need 300mm, get the 70-300L. If you need 200mm at f/4 and hardly ever need longer, then the 70-200 might suffice.



The 70-300L isn't much different in weight from 70-200/4 IS + 1.4x extender at 1050g and 760+225=985g respectively. The 70-300L is a lot shorter which makes it potentially easier to pack too. At least for my bags I run out of length long before I run out of width as the 70-300L is slightly fatter but a lot shorter, and the difference will only increase if you fit an extender.

[Sylvain]

I have to concur with Popo here. I was in a "safari" in south africa and had the 70-200 f/4 IS L + Kenko 1.4. I found that it was indeed rather fiddly to mount/unmout it and I could notice an impact on image quality. Also, I unlocked the tc accidentally a couple of times and almost got a disaster but can't exactly remember how it happened. All that to say that if you're intending to get more reach, the TC way is a bit of a pain, IMHO.



Greetings,

S.

[Guest]

Hello



For a Safari I would get the 70-300 L as well. Good contrast / color / AF and sealing (safari can be dusty).



Avoid the 55-250 IS. The contrast is rather low and the colors are not very good. You will loose your safari money.

If money is an issue I would rather get the tamron 70-300 VC. 4 times cheaper and not a bad lens. Both color and constrast seem to be good.

However, dust could be an issue during the safari.



Regards,

Emmanuel.

[soLong]

um, i really like jb's shots so don't like to disagree, but, i've had 70-200 with aps-c (not canon) and it was never long enough, and dare i say, never wide enough too....and tc's are not for me....



....so what to do? - depends what you shoot - currently i have (for aps-c) the 70-300L (v good lens, sharp everywhere, fast focus and as an extending lens is not too large) + for my wides i carry the sig8-16, small and light (the c10-20 might be an another choice) - both these lenses are for me v good copies, and + camera are not too heavy or large.....so when i'm out to shoot street portraits + some sports + etc, these are my choice.....



.....but then, the above were an necessary purchase because my other brand didn't quite hack it (imho) under those longer and faster circumstances....too bad....and so if you're after another type of picture, full frame and various 16-135za's are bliss.....or for the quick trip away with family, that camera + 24-70za is all i take and is excellent....so aps-c maybe with 24-70 or so maybe....it all depends....