|
I have the Canon 70-200f4 L on a 350D, which is very sharp, fast focussing and a joy to use. I do a little casual birding and wildlife, and not wanting to stretch to a 400 f5.6 L, I plumped for the cheap and chearful 70-300IS hoping that the bit longer reach would be useful, even more so coupled with a 1.4x extender. When one month out of warrenty my 70-200L developed a focussing fault and it looked like I was about to be landed with a big bill, in a fit of pique I decided to dump the L lens and buy the 70-300IS. [Canon did the repair at no cost in the end, after a strongly worded letter]. I still have both lenses. Sadly at 200mm the 70-300IS is no where near as sharp as the 70-200L at 200mm, and at 300mm the 70-300IS is not as sharp as the 70-200L at 200mm, the image cropped to the same size. I will probably keep both, since in situations where there is little light, as in the cover of trees, the IS of the 70-300 may just allow a shot that the 70-200L would not. Sadly I was swayed by these reviews into thinking maybe the 70-300IS is a poor mans L series. I am afraid it isn't.
|
