October 21, 2014, 01:29:57 PM

Author Topic: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS  (Read 16287 times)

HughHowey

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
    • My Author Site
Re: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2011, 10:27:46 PM »
While we're on the topic, I wonder what people think of the 200mm F2.8 L. I used to have an FD mount version of this lens and absolutely loved it.

No IS and no zoom, but it seems like a real bargain. Anyone out there own one?

I love mine, but I do wish it would zoom out. :)

To be honest, though (maybe because I'm on a crop), I usually grab my 135 f2 and just crop a little if I need to. Images are always sharp enough to do so.
T2i ~ 28mm 1.8 ~ 50mm 1.4 ~ 15-85mm ~ 55-250mm ~ 100mm 2.8L Macro ~ 135mm 2L ~ 200mm 2.8L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2011, 10:27:46 PM »

widowmaker

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2011, 01:42:40 AM »
I, too, got the 70-300 mainly because of it's size for use when I travel and it's extra reach.  Cost was an issue.  Getting the 70-200 f/2.8II IS and an extender was just too much for my pocket book and I could not justify myself spending that amount of money since I am not a pro photographer and most of my shooting activity is outdoors. Also the review here at CR kinda sealed the deal for me. :)
[/quote]

I share the same view.  However my concern is, eventually I would really want the 70-200 f2.8L IS II and should I choose to get the 70-300L IS for now, it might not be too easy to dispose of it.  Interest on it may not be as much as its 70-200 counterparts, either the f2.8 I or II or f4 IS.  Though I know its price value will still be there.

Another point against the 70-300L IS is the variable aperture.  I shoot mostly events in lowlight.

So, I guess, I still have a lot of thinking and considering to do.

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3086
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2011, 03:35:45 AM »
...
¤ The 70-300 weighs in at 1050g (37.1 oz) while the 70-200 weighs in at 760g (26.8 oz) making the 70-200 not much, but somewhat easier to carry around and to use while shooting handheld
...

The weight killed the 70-300L for me.

Heidrun

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2011, 08:01:21 AM »
I would deffetly go for the 70-200 because its inner focus. If 70-300 did hav that inner focus. then i would prefer that

Act444

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2011, 12:30:32 PM »

Another point against the 70-300L IS is the variable aperture.  I shoot mostly events in lowlight.


I can tell you right now that the 70-300 is NOT a low-light lens. My primary use for that lens is animals and flowers during the daytime (also, special outdoor events), when there is enough light. Once evening hits, the ISO speeds quickly go up. The IS, however, is excellent and can counter the effect somewhat- but I was out one late evening, and in the shade I was already hitting ISO 3200 at f5.6.

Frankly, the 70-200 f4 is not a low-light lens either, but the main difference is that if you're inside, there is a HUGE difference between f4 and f5.6. f4 can mean getting the shot if it's well- or moderately-lit, the subject is standing relatively still, and you don't mind a bit of noise. If there is any kind of quick movement you wish to freeze indoors, you can forget about either of these lenses. Of course, if you're going to be using a flash, all this doesn't really matter too much.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2011, 12:34:25 PM by Act444 »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14710
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2011, 02:07:36 PM »
...I was out one late evening, and in the shade I was already hitting ISO 3200 at f5.6.  Frankly, the 70-200 f4 is not a low-light lens either, but the main difference is that if you're inside, there is a HUGE difference between f4 and f5.6.

Even f/2.8 is marginal in low light.  It gets by with a camera that produces decent images at ISO 3200 (e.g. 5DII), but in low light you really need to be looking at f/2 or faster (and be prepared for a thin DoF).
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

nico

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2011, 04:26:36 AM »
Hi,
I have a 5d (mk I), a 24-105 as walk-around lens, a 50 1.4 for indoor use and a 17-40 as UWA which I will use this summer for my roadtrip in Iceland.
I also wanted to buy a telephoto lens and it was a difficult choice. The unexpensive zooms (70-300 no-L, third party lenses etc.) seem to give really poor images. So I  hesitated also between those 2 good lenses (70-200 f/4 IS & 70-300 L) because the other ones (70-200 2.8, 100-400, 300, 400..) are really too big and to heavy to carry with me all along the day (I love hiking).
After lots of searches, I think I will chose the prime 200mm F/2.8 L II. I don't know if you have already considered this cheaper alternative. I have an opportunity to have one second-hand for 600$ (half price of the other two). It's easy to carry (only 13 cm long) and discret (black). It has no weather sealing, no IS  but is sharp and good from 2.8 so I'll be able to shoot faster (as fast as the 70-200 2.8 which is twice heavier and half longer) and have a better bokeh for portraits. Because it's a prime, it's also pretty good with a teleconverter (I think I will buy the small 1.4x PRO kenko to have a 280mm F/4) and/or won't hesitate to crop a bit if necessary (I'm not a pro and don't print big posters...) to shoot wildlife.
Comments before my purchase are greatly welcome :-)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2011, 04:26:36 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14710
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2011, 10:15:40 AM »
I also wanted to buy a telephoto lens and it was a difficult choice. The unexpensive zooms (70-300 no-L, third party lenses etc.) seem to give really poor images. So I  hesitated also between those 2 good lenses (70-200 f/4 IS & 70-300 L) because the other ones (70-200 2.8, 100-400, 300, 400..) are really too big and to heavy to carry with me all along the day (I love hiking).
After lots of searches, I think I will chose the prime 200mm F/2.8 L II. I don't know if you have already considered this cheaper alternative. I have an opportunity to have one second-hand for 600$ (half price of the other two). It's easy to carry (only 13 cm long) and discret (black). It has no weather sealing, no IS  but is sharp and good from 2.8 so I'll be able to shoot faster (as fast as the 70-200 2.8 which is twice heavier and half longer) and have a better bokeh for portraits. Comments before my purchase are greatly welcome :-)

I owned the 200/2.8 II for a while, and sold it only after getting the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.  The 200/2.8 prime is a great lens, and a great value.  My only 'complaint' about is is that it's a long focal length to use with no IS - even at f/2.8 you need a fair bit of light to get a 1/200 s shutter speed.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Jedifarce

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
« Reply #23 on: May 12, 2011, 02:20:14 PM »
Quote
Your thoughts guys on the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or an EF 70-200 f/4L IS.  There is somewhat of a price difference (approximately $300) among the two, with the latter being cheaper, yet older (2006).  Should you choose one among the two in terms of value, what would it be?  Both have very decent reviews and I'm looking to purchase one of them.  Help me choose.

I was initially looking at the EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II to compliment my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L on a 60D body, but the price is quite prohibiting.

I have both lenses, while I like the extra 100mm focal distance the 300mm gives you over the 200mm, it can't beat the sharpness of the 200mm. The 300mm is a bit dull and softer -which is great if you like that sort of imagery- when compared to the 200mm. In addition, the 200mm has a constant aperture of F/4 meaning if you're shooting video the exposure levels won't shift as it does with the 300mm as you're zooming in or zooming out.

Act444

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 325
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2011, 11:32:00 PM »
Quote
Your thoughts guys on the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or an EF 70-200 f/4L IS.  There is somewhat of a price difference (approximately $300) among the two, with the latter being cheaper, yet older (2006).  Should you choose one among the two in terms of value, what would it be?  Both have very decent reviews and I'm looking to purchase one of them.  Help me choose.

I was initially looking at the EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II to compliment my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L on a 60D body, but the price is quite prohibiting.

I have both lenses, while I like the extra 100mm focal distance the 300mm gives you over the 200mm, it can't beat the sharpness of the 200mm. The 300mm is a bit dull and softer -which is great if you like that sort of imagery- when compared to the 200mm. In addition, the 200mm has a constant aperture of F/4 meaning if you're shooting video the exposure levels won't shift as it does with the 300mm as you're zooming in or zooming out.

True that.

But you CAN get sharp images out of the 70-300 with some PP. For many shots I took near 300mm, I messed around with the unsharp mask- boosted the sharpening from +3 to +6 and boom, it was just as sharp as the 70-200.

The images are definitely softer out of camera, though.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2011, 11:32:00 PM »