70-200 f4 ?

[sedwards]

my current setup is a T4i with a 75-300 4-5.6 III .how much better would the image quality be with the 70-200 f4L. i really wan to get a new lens but im worried the improvement wont be as good as the pics i see on here. does anyone here have that camera and lens that could post some pics ? my pics are really not very nice right now with my current lens.

[Jayson]

I believe you will see quite a step up. I owned the 70-300mm f4/5.6 IS which was a pretty good lens and moved up to the 70-200mm F/4 L IS and never looked back. The non-is version of the 70-200mm f/4 L has great image quality, I don't think you would regret it. I have a friend with that lens and has no intention on moving to the IS version. I believe Bryan said in one of his reviews that he would rather crop a very sharp 200mm picture than have a soft 300mm shot. I believe that is the difference you will see in this decision.

[peety3]

Borrow, rent or steal, ok, borrow or rent the lens you want and see for yourself. Visit a camera store and try one in-store. By all means, don't buy a lens just because a bunch of folks on a forum told you that it's the right choice, as it's your money on the line.

[Busted Knuckles]

Borrow, rent or steal, ok, borrow or rent the lens you want and see for yourself. Visit a camera store and try one in-store. By all means, don't buy a lens just because a bunch of folks on a forum told you that it's the right choice, as it's your money on the line.

Very good advice. +2

[thekingb]

Borrow, rent or steal, ok, borrow or rent the lens you want and see for yourself. Visit a camera store and try one in-store. By all means, don't buy a lens just because a bunch of folks on a forum told you that it's the right choice, as it's your money on the line.

Yes, it's your money on the line. But if you have some trust in the good folks of a forum (such as this one), the collective advice of people can be an important data point for a decision. On a larger scale, this is part of amazon's secret - lots of user reviews that build trust.

Renting a lens before buying is obviously a great idea (and probably worth it for very expensive lenses). But for a $600 lens, as a percentage of the cost, it's quite expensive.For the same money, you can (and I have) buy the lens, use it for a month, and resell it on amazon as "used-like new" if you don't want it (especially with L lenses). I did this with the sigma 8-16mm, which I used for a trip and then resold for a "loss" that was less than the cost of renting for a week.

[EricPvpi]

Yes, it's your money on the line. But if you have some trust in the good folks of a forum (such as this one), the collective advice of people can be an important data point for a decision. On a larger scale, this is part of amazon's secret - lots of user reviews that build trust.

Renting a lens before buying is obviously a great idea (and probably worth it for very expensive lenses). But for a $600 lens, as a percentage of the cost, it's quite expensive.For the same money, you can (and I have) buy the lens, use it for a month, and resell it on amazon as "used-like new" if you don't want it (especially with L lenses). I did this with the sigma 8-16mm, which I used for a trip and then resold for a "loss" that was less than the cost of renting for a week.

I have really appreciated this groups advice and asked a similar question early last year. I was on a T3I (have since moved to 60D). I was debating similar lenses and ended up making the leap and going with the 70-200 F/4L IS. But I think I would have been very happy with the non-IS as well. To expand on rent verse buy, look for someone who has a good return policy. B&H has a 30 day return policy, so buying and trying within that window is cheaper than renting. I would only have to pay for shipping back.

Eric

[peety3]

my pics are really not very nice right now with my current lens.

I spoke my mind earlier, but new replies have triggered me to speak my mind a little bit more. Although the 75-300 4-5.6III is not the finest lens on the market, we should all be coaching you to be sure that your technique is suitable for the shots you're taking, as incorrect/"insufficient" technique on one lens won't magically become near-amazing technique on a different lens. Are you keeping the lens stopped down at least one stop, or perhaps at f/8, for better optical performance? Are you managing aperture/ISO/shutter in a "Expose to the right, ISO to the right" manner to juggle depth of focus, blur, and quality? Are you using a tripod? Would you be better off with the 200mm f/2.8 L instead of the 70-200 f/4 L?

[PatrickH]

Hi sedwards. A word of caution, judging yourself by the standards here is a tall order. There are a lot of really talented folks on this site that have developed all aspects of their craft. This includes lighting, composition, motion, post processing etc. What is it that you feel your pictures are lacking? I recently upgraded from the 70-300 IS to a 70-200 2.8, and the leap in build quality is significant. I now have the benefit of a fast, fixed max aperture. As you would expect I also noticed an increase in sharpness and contrast, especially when comparing images taken at the long end. That said, gains in this area are a matter of perspective. As people here have said before, after a certain point large sums of money will translate to incremental gains in quality. There are many shots from the 70-300 that I am still happy with, and in the grand scheme of things there probably aren't too many folks that could spot or care about the printed differences at equivalent settings. I think you'll love the step to L lenses if you stick with this hobby, but I recommend spending some time first thinking about what it is you don't like about your shots if you already haven't. If you can answer that it will be easier to pick the right gear. Also, and I apologize if you have a lot of experience with your 75-300, but note that without IS you need a relatively fast shutter speed to stop motion blur at the long end of that lens, roughly 1/420 or higher. With a narrow 5.6 aperture this can be difficult to achieve without bumping your ISO to higher levels. High ISO or a shutter that is too slow can lead to less than stellar image quality.

[thekingb]

Also, and I apologize if you have a lot of experience with your 75-300, but note that without IS you need a relatively fast shutter speed to stop motion blur at the long end of that lens, roughly 1/420 or higher. With a narrow 5.6 aperture this can be difficult to achieve without bumping your ISO to higher levels. High ISO or a shutter that is too slow can lead to less than stellar image quality.

+1 to this point. Insufficient shutter speed dooms many shots, especially if you have shaky hands. Think about all those iPhone/smart phone shots people try to take in lower light conditions. They're always blurry and grainy -- blurry because of insufficient shutter speed and grainy from the high ISO used to try to boost the shutter speed.

I've learned a ton from people on this forum. It's also a very nice forum compared to many others. So don't be afraid to ask. People genuinely want to help.

[sedwards]

Here is another question then. If i have a crop sensor and shooting 300 mm is 1/320 shutter speed my minimum or hould i multiply by 1.6 ? I will post some of my pics tonight when i get home .its mostly when things are far and im at 250+ mm that i find it is not sharp at all. Even in bright sunlight ive tried from f6.3 to f11 and cant see much of an improvement. Im hoping thats the best this lens can do and an L series will give me more sharpness , or maybe ill get lucky and find out im just doing it wrong lol