Actually two questions!....

Interested to hear SNet-people's reasons for choosing the 70-200 f4 over the 70-300 f4-f5.6 IS. From what I have read they seem to be fairly evenly matched for IQ - or are they?

And secondly, why dont Canon make an equivalent to Nikons 18-200 VR - a £500 - compact - take anywhere - do anything solution?

I am new to the world of lenses so dont shout if its obvious:D

Nick.

I've got the older 75-300 f4.0-5.6 IS and it's nowhere near as sharp as the 70-200 f4 L IMHO.

I'm after the EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 L IS USM next :D

because the 70-200 f4 L is the entry level of Canon's professional lens line up, and the optics are superior to the cheaper consumer range. They're also more rugged. Plus a bit of snobbery over other users.

They make a 28-200 lens - close enough?

Actually, I went the other way and chose the 70-300 IS USM, for these reasons:

More reach for track days etc
Has IS
Ultimatly want the 70-200 2.8 IS USM but was / still is out of budget
The 70-300 was £100 cheaper than the 70-200 f4

Don't get me wrong the L probably is better built, has better optics and is sharper, but for starters, and until budget allows, I am well happy with the 70-300 and would recommend it to anyone (or at least anyone without the L lens already).

Actually two questions!....

Interested to here SNet-people's reasons for choosing the 70-200 f4 over the 70-300 f4-f5.6 IS. From what I have read they seem to be fairly evenly matched for IQ - or are they?

And secondly, why dont Canon make an equivalent to Nikons 18-200 VR - a £500 - compact - take anywhere - do anything solution?

I am new to the world of lenses so dont shout if its obvious:D

Nick.

I think its fair to say they are fairly evenly matchd for sharpness, but the "L" has better colour and contrast IMO.

And the build quality is much better with the "L". Not that the 70-300 is bad, by any means.

There were sharpness/image issues with the 70-300 in portrait mode, not sure if they have been fixed.

The "L" focuses extremely quickly and, of course, is f4 throughout its focal length.

The 70-300 is a great lens, the 70-200 just a little bit better.

As for the 28-200 issue, who knows - Canon make a 50-200 but its a budget lens. Hard to get the quality accross the length of the zoom with such a large range.

Canon make a 28-350 L (I think) but its a fortune, huge, heavy and still a compromise.

The 70-200mm f/4 L is something of a Canon legend and will beat any of the 70-300mm Canon zooms for pure image quality. But it's quite big and doesn't have IS.

I bought one about a year ago, but swapped it for a 70-300mm IS DO because of the extra reach, IS, and its remarkably compact size. The 70-300mm IS was not available then or I would probably have gone for that, based on value for money. However, there is a problem when this lens when used in portrait position. I think Canon has acknowledged this but you should check which serial numbers are the good 'uns.

You are not the only person who would like a Canon EF-S 18-200mm IS zoom, a la Nikon. The Nikon lens has been a huge success and at least one contributor to this forum has had one on order for several months. If you want one, put a deposit down now because I'm certain Canon will show something at Photokina in October, or maybe before. With luck, it could be your Xmas pressie :)

Richard.

Canon do indeed make a 28-300 L IS. I had a play with one, may not be the highest quality L product, but still light years ahead of consumer zooms. Popular amongst some journalists for the range and quality from one lens.

Not everyone has £ 1600 to spend on a lens...

I would imagine Canon will bring out something to compete with the 18-200 VR. A few (and I grant a few) have actually jumped to Nikon on the strength of this lense, which seems a stupid move, you don't dump a system on the strength of one lense!

For a superzoom it is very high quality, and with AF-S and VR, it's a killer. Canon would be daft not to bring something like it out.

Geezer

They make a 28-200 lens - close enough?

No, not really, 18-28 IMO is more usefull than 200-300 :eek:


I bought one about a year ago, but swapped it for a 70-300mm IS DO because of the extra reach, IS,.

hmm...Interesting.


You are not the only person who would like a Canon EF-S 18-200mm IS zoom, a la Nikon. The Nikon lens has been a huge success and at least one contributor to this forum has had one on order for several months. If you want one, put a deposit down now because I'm certain Canon will show something at Photokina in October, or maybe before. With luck, it could be your Xmas pressie :)

Richard.

I didn't know that! - That would certainly shorten my wish list (for now) :D

Thanks all.

Nick.

why dont Canon make an equivalent to Nikons 18-200 VR

Why don't Nikon make an equivalent to Canons 70-200 f4L? :brickwall

Why don't Nikon make an equivalent to Canons 70-200 f4L? :brickwall

What about the 70-200 2.8 VR? One of the finest lenses around?

Geezer

What about the 70-200 2.8 VR? One of the finest lenses around?

Geezer

But it is big, heavy & expensive. A sub £500 70-200 4.0 VR would do me just fine.