Curious

If the occasion arose whereby you were granted the opportunity to make a
selection between two Canon lenses, the 70-200mm f4L USM and the 75-300
f4-5.6 IS USM, aware of the advantages each lens has, which lens would
you chose?

"nick c" wrote in message
news:blRtd.160638$V41.134526@attbi_s52...
If the occasion arose whereby you were granted the opportunity to make a
selection between two Canon lenses, the 70-200mm f4L USM and the 75-300
f4-5.6 IS USM, aware of the advantages each lens has, which lens would
you chose?

I will never buy another lens at 200mm or higher that is not IS.

I have owned the 75-300 IS (gave it to my dad later), and now own the 70-200
2.8 IS L. It is my favorite lens.

That would be a tough choice because there are just SO many situations where
hand-holding is the only possible mode of operation, and IS really saves the
day. There is really no comparison in terms of optics though. The 70-200
f4L will make the other look like crap.
If it were me, I'd keep saving for the 2.8 IS L version.
-Crummy answer...I know, but them's the facts...

What would be nice is a 70-200 f4 *IS* L. This would retain the small(ish)
lighter weight compared with the 2.8 version.

Neither,

I'd choose the Nikkor 80-200 F2.8 AFS 'cause the Canon glass just doesn't
work all that well on my F5

Jeffery S. Harrison

"nick c" wrote in message
news:blRtd.160638$V41.134526@attbi_s52...
If the occasion arose whereby you were granted the opportunity to make a
selection between two Canon lenses, the 70-200mm f4L USM and the 75-300
f4-5.6 IS USM, aware of the advantages each lens has, which lens would
you chose?

Mark² wrote:
"nick c" wrote in message
news:blRtd.160638$V41.134526@attbi_s52...

If the occasion arose whereby you were granted the opportunity to make a
selection between two Canon lenses, the 70-200mm f4L USM and the 75-300
f4-5.6 IS USM, aware of the advantages each lens has, which lens would
you chose?


I will never buy another lens at 200mm or higher that is not IS.

I have owned the 75-300 IS (gave it to my dad later), and now own the 70-200
2.8 IS L. It is my favorite lens.

That would be a tough choice because there are just SO many situations where
hand-holding is the only possible mode of operation, and IS really saves the
day. There is really no comparison in terms of optics though. The 70-200
f4L will make the other look like crap.
If it were me, I'd keep saving for the 2.8 IS L version.
-Crummy answer...I know, but them's the facts...

What would be nice is a 70-200 f4 *IS* L. This would retain the small(ish)
lighter weight compared with the 2.8 version.




Thanks for the reply Mark.

I was at the local store this morning and a customer asked the question.

Knowing the advantages/attributes of each lens, I still found myself
hesitating to give an answer. I first thought one way, thinking it to be
the best of the selection, then I reverse engineered my thought and
found myself leaning in another direction.

To nix them both in favor of the 70-200mm F2.8 IS USM lens was out of
the question. The money wasn't there.

When the Canon rep was here I asked about a 70-200mm F4L IS USM lens and
was told there are new lenses being considered in S and IS designs and
she didn't know if that was one of the new designs.

nick

Jeffery Harrison wrote:
Neither,

I'd choose the Nikkor 80-200 F2.8 AFS 'cause the Canon glass just doesn't
work all that well on my F5

Jeffery S. Harrison

Well now, that reasoning would not be too difficult to understand.
Better yet would be the VR lens.

nick




"nick c" wrote in message
news:blRtd.160638$V41.134526@attbi_s52...

If the occasion arose whereby you were granted the opportunity to make a
selection between two Canon lenses, the 70-200mm f4L USM and the 75-300
f4-5.6 IS USM, aware of the advantages each lens has, which lens would
you chose?

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 22:13:53 -0800, Mark² wrote:

I will never buy another lens at 200mm or higher that is not IS.

I have owned the 75-300 IS (gave it to my dad later), and now own the 70-200
2.8 IS L. It is my favorite lens.

That would be a tough choice because there are just SO many situations where
hand-holding is the only possible mode of operation, and IS really saves the
day. There is really no comparison in terms of optics though. The 70-200
f4L will make the other look like crap.
If it were me, I'd keep saving for the 2.8 IS L version.
-Crummy answer...I know, but them's the facts...

What would be nice is a 70-200 f4 *IS* L. This would retain the small(ish)
lighter weight compared with the 2.8 version.

Canon are the toilet paper of the photographic world. Throwaway stuff... ;-)

I see the price of the Canon 20D with 18-55mm EF-S lens is now on par with
the Nikon D70. *

Also, I see that they have now given the 300D a black body with matching
grip at a price point about 60% of the Nikon D70. Tut-tut. More sorry
Canon users to come, no doubt. How come they can drop prices of new models
so quickly? Are they going to be replaced before Xmas????

* SA prices.

Hmmm....

The 280mm f/4 Leica APO-Telyt-R

Hmmm....

The 280mm f/4 Leica APO-Telyt-R

"nick c" wrote in message
news:blRtd.160638$V41.134526@attbi_s52...
If the occasion arose whereby you were granted the opportunity to make a
selection between two Canon lenses, the 70-200mm f4L USM and the 75-300
f4-5.6 IS USM, aware of the advantages each lens has, which lens would
you chose?

It would depend on the use that is intended.
What is more important to you, the quality below 200mm or having the
200-300mm range?

"nick c" wrote in message
news:blRtd.160638$V41.134526@attbi_s52...
If the occasion arose whereby you were granted the opportunity to make a
selection between two Canon lenses, the 70-200mm f4L USM and the 75-300
f4-5.6 IS USM, aware of the advantages each lens has, which lens would
you chose?

It would depend on the use that is intended.
What is more important to you, the quality below 200mm or having the
200-300mm range?