Brandon Brown
I've read a pile of reviews of both lenses, and read alot about them on Canon forums. Do any Stormtrack users have and use these lenses!? If so, what are your thoughts and which lens would you recommend? Thank you very much.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM vs. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Chris Allington
EF4
I have 70-300 USM and while I do like it I don't find it very practical for storm chasing. More for wildlife shots and sports.
Brett Roberts
EF5
I was in the same predicament this past summer and settled on the 70-200 f/4L. The amazing color, contrast, and sharpness are more than worth the tradeoff of not having IS, to me. In fact, for chasing, I'm almost always using a tripod in low-light situations to begin with, so IS was not high on my priority list.
Of course, I've never used the 70-300, so I can't comment on its relative image quality. Perhaps it's closer to the L than what my research suggested. But I can guarantee that if you accept the L's lack of IS, you will be more than satisfied with not only its IQ, but also its flawless and silent AF and overall build quality.
Of course, I've never used the 70-300, so I can't comment on its relative image quality. Perhaps it's closer to the L than what my research suggested. But I can guarantee that if you accept the L's lack of IS, you will be more than satisfied with not only its IQ, but also its flawless and silent AF and overall build quality.
Rob Wadsworth
EF5
I'd agree with that. I use the 10-22mm Canon for the storms, as I think many Canon/storm chasers do.
I use the 50mm/f1.4 for distant shots - it has excellence and precision - I really dig my results.
Some have used 100mm w/1.6 crop factor and got some s w e e t results - too.
Mostly, I think you will find the wide-angle zoom lenses or fixed/prime wide-angle lenses best for chasing.
It really depends what you are going to shoot and from how far- eh?
Brandon Brown
I appreciate the replies, guys. I have the EF-S 10-22mm, so I'm just looking for another affordable Canon lens that offers a little more versatility photography wise.
Chris Bowman
EF0
I used the F4L IS version on a trip to Hawaii and rented it through lensrentals.com. I liked it for zooming up really close and the IS combined with the large aperture worked very well for freezing surfers on a rare cloudy day. But the high zoom wasn't useful at all for the many landscape pictures I wanted. If I had the money I would go with the L since it's got the bigger fixed aperture and it's L quality. Incidentally lensrentals.com is selling a used version of the F4L, $499.00 and F4L IS, $825.00. May be an option for you if you want to go that route.
Eric Hostetter
EF0
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 26
Well if you're looking primarily for affordability and versatility, then opt for the USM lens. If you're looking for a lens that's purpose built for use despite what mother nature has to throw at it, then you'd be hard pressed not to put your money in the L-series.
Remember, with L lenses it's not just the glass quality you're paying a premium for. L-series lenses are sealed and therefore are more impervious to water and minute dirt and dust particles. Considering the amount of wind, dirt, dust, and water/humidity often encountered in storm chasing, it's hard to consider anything else. USM lenses are very close in optical quality to the L-series and are certainly up to the task when it comes to light indoor/outdoor pro-level work, but not built to withstand the daily abuse of field work constantly exposed to the elements.
Remember, with L lenses it's not just the glass quality you're paying a premium for. L-series lenses are sealed and therefore are more impervious to water and minute dirt and dust particles. Considering the amount of wind, dirt, dust, and water/humidity often encountered in storm chasing, it's hard to consider anything else. USM lenses are very close in optical quality to the L-series and are certainly up to the task when it comes to light indoor/outdoor pro-level work, but not built to withstand the daily abuse of field work constantly exposed to the elements.
Olivier Staiger
EF3
yup, me too,
10-22 EF-S
and
50/1.4 ( very sharp, fast, excellent lens, and affordable)
alternatively you can also look into the 85/1.8 , still very fast and a bit closer zoom.
I also have a 200/ 2.8 L but rarely use it. we tend to get close enough to them there storms ;-)
so If I had just one lens , it would be the 50/1.4 , and the second choice is the 10-22.
besides, now that i have a the 450D with 12 MP it gives me some cropping margin, too.
10-22 EF-S
and
50/1.4 ( very sharp, fast, excellent lens, and affordable)
alternatively you can also look into the 85/1.8 , still very fast and a bit closer zoom.
I also have a 200/ 2.8 L but rarely use it. we tend to get close enough to them there storms ;-)
so If I had just one lens , it would be the 50/1.4 , and the second choice is the 10-22.
besides, now that i have a the 450D with 12 MP it gives me some cropping margin, too.
The 70-200 f4 in question is the exception to this rule. It is not weather-sealed. Any lens can be checked for this by examining the mount - A rubber ring should be present to seal with the camera body.
USM also has no correlation to optical quality, unfortunately. There are a number of poor and mediocre lenses that bear the designation. The 70-300 IS is one of the good ones, though, and the 70-200 f4 vs. 70-300 IS dilemma is not an uncommon one.
Aaron Kennedy
EF5
Just depends on your shooting style I suppose. I routinely use my 70-200 f/2.8 while chasing. I'm actually thinking of selling the lens (it's amazing by the way) and replacing it with the 70-200 f/4 IS which is billed as the sharpest of the bunch. To me, the lighter weight, smaller size, AND 4 stop-IS is more important than having the 2.8 at this point in time.
Ryan McGinnis
EF5
The 70-200IS f/4L Canon lens is one of the greatest lenses they have ever made. Really. The image quality is beyond incredible and is nothing short of world-class. The build quality is equally great; it's built like a tank. The price point is excellent. The Image Stabilizer gives you at least three stops, and sometimes the advertised 4. The resale value of this lens is equally incredible; you could keep it for two years and then resell it on Ebay for maybe 5 or 10% depreciation. To me, if you can afford either, the 70-200IS f/4L lens is probably the best telephoto zoom that you can get, unless they really, really need that extra stop of light that the next lens up, the 70-200 IS f/2.8L, can provide. Even then, the image quality of the 70-200 IS f/4L actually outperforms by a good margin the image quality of the 70-200 IS f/2.8L, which is around $1000 more.
BTW, get the image stabilized version if you get it. The non-stabilized version is a good lens, but it is from a previous generation of lens design and thus has image quality that is not in the same class as the IS version.
BTW, get the image stabilized version if you get it. The non-stabilized version is a good lens, but it is from a previous generation of lens design and thus has image quality that is not in the same class as the IS version.
Gene Moore
EF3
Tough call leaving a 2.8 telephoto for an F 4.0. I used the 70-200 f4L IS on the storms in north TX a few days ago. I was able to get a few sharp shots at 1/10 to 1/8 of a second. I had a wall cloud on the ground that looked much like a tornado, it was a pretty dark scene. Not all the images came out though, even with IS it's asking quite a bit at those slow speeds. Remember, IS stops the shakes, but it does not stop lens movement. That is, it does not lock down the image so any movement will blur the image somewhat. In retrospect I should have used the EF 85 1.8 if I wanted great shots. That said, I was looking for an excuse to try out the zoom in a true low light storm environment. I'll try to get some of the shots posted in the coming days.
