December 20, 2014, 09:46:26 PM

Author Topic: 70-300L on 5D Mark III  (Read 10208 times)

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2012, 01:58:12 PM »
Is the 70-300mmL worth the extra dough over the standard 70-300mm? Thats the Question... 8)

I am taking a series of pictures of the kid above to cover a wall - 4 x A3 - these are going to be one week apart (they grow quickly)

The A3 print shows a lot more detail than the one above. The picture was taken with the 1DS3.

I believe the L version of the lens is worth the extra - the contrast and IS work very well. Is it worth trying the cheap one - that is the question?  8)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2012, 01:58:12 PM »

VirtualRain

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2012, 02:04:05 PM »
I had the 70-300 non-L and upgraded to the 70-300L when I had my 7D and the upgrade was definitely worth it.  The L is much sharper and has much better contrast and saturation than the non-L.  The image stabilization is also significantly better - you can see it at work as soon as you press the shutter half-way - it's impressive.  The build quality difference is night and day better.

However, now that I've moved to full frame, I find myself wanting to try the 70-200 II so I think I'm going to rent it one weekend and do a shoot off.

From what I've read the 70-200 II renders primes in that range unnecessary (eg. 85 and 135).  And it's ideal for portraits.  The question in my mind... is the 70-200 II noticeably better than the 70-300L in image quality, and is the f2.8 worth the added bulk and weight.

On the other hand, the 70-300L would be much better on a Safari or other wild-life shoot.
Canon 5D Mark III, 35L, 85L, 24-105L, 70-300L

drjlo

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 662
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2012, 02:07:19 PM »

From what I've read the 70-200 II renders primes in that range unnecessary (eg. 85 and 135).

As much as I love my 70-200 II, there is NO WAY I'm getting rid of my 85L and 135L!  If Canon re-issues the 70-200 II with at least f/2 or f/1.8 (yeah right!) aperture, perhaps..

Act444

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 346
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2012, 02:10:34 PM »
Is the 70-300mmL worth the extra dough over the standard 70-300mm? Thats the Question... 8)

I tried the regular 70-300 in-store before settling on the L version eventually. I didn't evaluate its image quality but there is a HUGE difference between the 2 in build quality. You really do get what you pay for.

The regular 70-300 felt like a camera toy in my hand- the 70-300L feels like a serious piece of professional photographic equipment. Ultimately it's about the IQ for me and I've heard that the regular 70-300 is pretty weak at the 300mm end, so that's why I went for the L version.

Best thing is to try both out (if you can), then weigh the pros and cons of each. The regular one IS lighter, and 1/3 the price, so if weight and/or budget is an issue that's probably the way to go. But if you demand the highest in IQ it's probably worth it to save up.

Quote
...is the 70-200 II noticeably better than the 70-300L in image quality, and is the f2.8 worth the added bulk and weight.

depends on what you're shooting, and on what environment you will be shooting in. For me, the two lenses are interchangeable depending on what my telephoto needs are, exactly. Sports or indoors? f2.8 wins. Outdoors in daylight or animal photography? 70-300 with extra reach.

As for IQ, the 70-200 wins at the 70mm end, certainly. I'd even say the 70-200 at 70/2.8 outperforms the 70-300 at 70/4! At the 200mm end they seem to be quite close, though. I don't think you'd notice a difference in everyday shots...and in good light, the lighter weight of the 70-300 in that case is certainly appreciated. (Note that at 200mm the 70-300 has you at f5 minimum so it is nearly 2 stops slower here.)
« Last Edit: May 28, 2012, 02:18:19 PM by Act444 »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3543
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2012, 02:13:25 PM »
I had the 70-300 non-L and upgraded to the 70-300L when I had my 7D and the upgrade was definitely worth it.  The L is much sharper and has much better contrast and saturation than the non-L.  The image stabilization is also significantly better - you can see it at work as soon as you press the shutter half-way - it's impressive.  The build quality difference is night and day better.

However, now that I've moved to full frame, I find myself wanting to try the 70-200 II so I think I'm going to rent it one weekend and do a shoot off.

From what I've read the 70-200 II renders primes in that range unnecessary (eg. 85 and 135).  And it's ideal for portraits.  The question in my mind... is the 70-200 II noticeably better than the 70-300L in image quality, and is the f2.8 worth the added bulk and weight.

On the other hand, the 70-300L would be much better on a Safari or other wild-life shoot.

I agree the 70-200mm II is a awesome lens but I'd almost never choose it over the 135mm. The 135mm is lighter, faster, cheaper and sharper than the 70-200mm, and if i need 200mm I'd just use my 7D or a 1.4X TC.

It doesn't really weigh down you hand much and that f/2 aperture is better at stopping action than the slower zoom.

The main reason for the 85mm and 135mm prime lenses is the color, character, rendering and OOF blur they have. Its just personal taste but the 85mm 1.2L and 135mm f/2L have some of the best OOF i've seen.

lexonio

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2012, 02:14:37 PM »
Quote
Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment :-)

Don't get me wrong- the 70-200 2.8 is an EXCELLENT lens and for what it does, there's nothing else like it. It is best for sporting events (if you are close) as well as autograph/book signings, which often take place indoors (and f5.6 just won't cut it- I hate using flash). It is extremely versatile and I like that. But, it is not a lens I would want to sling around my neck and walk around with all day long...even for the couple of hours I use it, it gets tiring. But it is worth it when you view the images afterward!

The 70-300L is the telephoto lens I use when it is not worth lugging the extra weight of the 70-200. Basically, outdoor events in good lighting and animal shots where the variable aperture isn't an issue. Plus, 100mm of extra reach is gained and for animal shots, it can make a BIG difference!
Well, I was hoping 5d mark III's ISO performance would allow me to use it indoors. We'll see about that :-)

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5386
  • ... on superhero vacation!
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #21 on: May 28, 2012, 02:18:30 PM »
Well, I was hoping 5d mark III's ISO performance would allow me to use it indoors. We'll see about that :-)

Well, use for what screen- or print size is the question. Of course you can at least use the 70mm f4 end indoors - if there's no fast movement, or it isn't pitch black. People are said to use flashes, too, or so I've heard :-p

From what I've read the 70-200 II renders primes in that range unnecessary (eg. 85 and 135).  And it's ideal for portraits.  The question in my mind... is the 70-200 II noticeably better than the 70-300L in image quality, and is the f2.8 worth the added bulk and weight.

You should read again - the primes 85L and 135L offer superior bokeh and a thinner dof at non-tele range if you want it, it's non-replaceable by the 70-200/2.8.

The 70-200L and 70-300L are completely different lenses, too:  The 70-200L is the most flexible, lower-light event- and wedding lens out there with superior sharpness over the 70-300L - how much you will notice it will depend on your subject. The 70-300L imho has the better size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination and tradeoff. Btw, one of the best things about f2.8 is that the af works better than at f5.6 in lower light, at least on the 60d.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #21 on: May 28, 2012, 02:18:30 PM »

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #22 on: May 28, 2012, 02:27:06 PM »

 The 70-200L is the most flexible, lower-light event- and wedding lens out there with superior sharpness over the 70-300L

The difference in sharpness is very small - certainly I dont see it.

The big benefit of the 70-200 f/2.8 is the f/2.8.

The big benefits of the 70-300L is the extra 100mm and light weight.

IS is the same on both


PS For weddings the 24-105 is my most used. Ultra shallow DOF has to be carefully used in order to ensure both eyes are in focus. By default I use f/5.6.

Act444

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 346
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #23 on: May 28, 2012, 02:46:11 PM »
Quote
Yeah Act, I agree that the main thing here is the f/5.6 at 300mm, and it's quite capable of delivering great results though. I'm sad to hear that 70-200 f/2.8 II is a pain to carry around though - I was looking forward to maybe getting it sometime in the future, but since it's impossible to walk all day with it... Then it appears like I've just saved myself some $2500 worth of equipment :-)

Don't get me wrong- the 70-200 2.8 is an EXCELLENT lens and for what it does, there's nothing else like it. It is best for sporting events (if you are close) as well as autograph/book signings, which often take place indoors (and f5.6 just won't cut it- I hate using flash). It is extremely versatile and I like that. But, it is not a lens I would want to sling around my neck and walk around with all day long...even for the couple of hours I use it, it gets tiring. But it is worth it when you view the images afterward!

The 70-300L is the telephoto lens I use when it is not worth lugging the extra weight of the 70-200. Basically, outdoor events in good lighting and animal shots where the variable aperture isn't an issue. Plus, 100mm of extra reach is gained and for animal shots, it can make a BIG difference!
Well, I was hoping 5d mark III's ISO performance would allow me to use it indoors. We'll see about that :-)

I have a 60D so I typically will not shoot above ISO 3200. With the 5DIII you might be able to go up to 6400 comfortably- it seems that camera has REALLY good high ISO performance.

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 5386
  • ... on superhero vacation!
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #24 on: May 28, 2012, 03:01:50 PM »
I have a 60D so I typically will not shoot above ISO 3200. With the 5DIII you might be able to go up to 6400 comfortably- it seems that camera has REALLY good high ISO performance.

It's good you're saying what your comparison basis is - because I think iso3200 w/ the current 18mp sensor is like turning on a noise generator, I usually stay at 800 and maybe 1000 for some shots... the real question is how many stops better the 5d3 is, I guess it's 3 (2 for ff sensor + 1 over the 5d2)?!

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3543
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2012, 03:09:46 PM »
I have a 60D so I typically will not shoot above ISO 3200. With the 5DIII you might be able to go up to 6400 comfortably- it seems that camera has REALLY good high ISO performance.

It's good you're saying what your comparison basis is - because I think iso3200 w/ the current 18mp sensor is like turning on a noise generator, I usually stay at 800 and maybe 1000 for some shots... the real question is how many stops better the 5d3 is, I guess it's 3 (2 for ff sensor + 1 over the 5d2)?!

+1, I've also shot at ISO 3200 and sometimes even 6400 on my 7D. Alittle grain never hurt anyone, plus its no worse than the ISO 800 B&W film I'd be shooting years ago. Modern software can take the noise well as long as you do your job and nail perfect exposures in RAW.

lexonio

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #26 on: May 28, 2012, 03:39:47 PM »
12800 ISO is fine at 5d mkIII, even 25600 is quite okay.

VirtualRain

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2012, 07:16:06 PM »

You should read again - the primes 85L and 135L offer superior bokeh and a thinner dof at non-tele range if you want it, it's non-replaceable by the 70-200/2.8.

The 70-200L and 70-300L are completely different lenses, too:  The 70-200L is the most flexible, lower-light event- and wedding lens out there with superior sharpness over the 70-300L - how much you will notice it will depend on your subject. The 70-300L imho has the better size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination and tradeoff. Btw, one of the best things about f2.8 is that the af works better than at f5.6 in lower light, at least on the 60d.

There are plenty of threads on "other forums" where a lot of folks sold their 135L in particular after acquiring a 70-200 II and some even parted ways with their 85L II.   The Bokeh of the 70-200 with rounded blades is apparently nicer than the 135 and not many people have use for the razor thin depth of field that results from f2 at 135mm.  That's the kind of territory where an eye is in focus while the nose and ear are not.  But that's getting off-topic.

I think everyone has summarized the 70-300L pros and cons nicely... it's a nice set of glass in a very convenient package and the high ISO capabilities of the 5D3 make up for it's otherwise unappealing max apertures.
Canon 5D Mark III, 35L, 85L, 24-105L, 70-300L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2012, 07:16:06 PM »

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4575
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2012, 07:30:55 PM »
From what I've read the 70-200 II renders primes in that range unnecessary (eg. 85 and 135).  And it's ideal for portraits.  The question in my mind... is the 70-200 II noticeably better than the 70-300L in image quality, and is the f2.8 worth the added bulk and weight.
Actually i've gone the other way since getting my 85 f1.4 sigma I hardly use the 70 200 anymore unless i specifically need 200mm, at f2 the sigma 85 is considerably sharper than the 70-200 at f2.8 anywhere
perhaps i should do what brian did and get the 200 f2L (I am not sure i could get that approved by the wife though) :(
APS-H Fanboy

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1406
    • View Profile
Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #29 on: May 29, 2012, 11:02:25 PM »
The 70-200 f/2.8 II is big and heavy but it's manageable with a strap system.

It certainly might be manageable, but in the local zoo I can see owners of a 70-200/2.8+tc from afar because they use both arms to carry their camera. I just wouldn't have this and a flash hang from my wrist, that's why I've got the 70-300L.

LOL!  I carry it on a strap or mostly one-handed because the other is pushing a stroller or holding a kid's hand.  The 70-200 f/2.8 II is about a pound heavier (without the tripod ring) than the 70-300L.  I've never used the 70-300L, but the images from it look great and I'm sure the torque on the wrist is a lot less because its shorter (esp. at 70mm).  I was thinking about looking into the 300 f/4, but I like using zooms outside if the target distance is variable (like the zoo).  Instead, I got the 1.4x TC when it went on sale, and there isn't that much of a difference between 200 and 280 most of the time.  The 100-400 is the longest Canon-made option that is still "portable."  I'm hoping that the 100-400L replacement will be lighter than the current version because, right now, it only weighs a couple ounces less than the 70-200 f/2.8 II.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III
« Reply #29 on: May 29, 2012, 11:02:25 PM »