70-200/70-300
- Thread starter barbara
- Start date
- Status
I have researched these two lens until my eyes bled, and finally chose the 70-300L.
Why?
It is more compact so easier to travel with, almost the same price and yet you get more distance, newer from memory. But ultimately it was all the positive reviews, the compact size and that little extra reach which persuaded me.
Here is a good review of the 70-300L on canonrumors:
http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/
For me the only downside was the tripod collar is not included, and a better quality bag would have been nice for the money being paid. I am still very happy with it and those two issues were definitely not deal breakers.
Why?
It is more compact so easier to travel with, almost the same price and yet you get more distance, newer from memory. But ultimately it was all the positive reviews, the compact size and that little extra reach which persuaded me.
Here is a good review of the 70-300L on canonrumors:
http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/
For me the only downside was the tripod collar is not included, and a better quality bag would have been nice for the money being paid. I am still very happy with it and those two issues were definitely not deal breakers.
Upvote
0
S
Steve Campbell
Guest
There's no tripod collar with the 70-200 f4 either, but it's not so heavy that it's a must have. The 70-200 f4 IS very sharp, very light and compact, has a constant apperture etc. I've heard the 70-300 L is nice also, but I have only used the 70-200, which is a super piece of glass. Cheaper to buy new and much easier to find used. You can use 1.4 teleconverters on the 70-200 f4 but not the 70-300L.
Upvote
0
Yep, the 70-200 is fairly easy to find used, as a lot of people upgraded to the newest 70-200 f/2.8.Steve Campbell said:
The Digital Picture Comparison shows the 70-200 as being slightly sharper across the frame, but it's subtle and probably not enough to be visible in actual pictures. And, you get 200mm f/4 instead of 200mm f/5. But, if you think you'll use 200-300 a lot, then the 70-300L might be more worth it.
Well, a 1.4 teleconverter basically turns it into the 70-300L; you get 280mm f/5.6. So, I'd say that's ultimately a moot point, especially because I'd rather not use a TC if possible
Upvote
0
They are both very close in sharpness, price, usability, weight, color, snob value and L'ness.
However the 70-300L will give you an extra 100mm, making your 550D and 70-300 equivalent to 480mm with all the L sharpness and goodness.
If you feel later on you need a faster lens, go with the 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii, but by then you will "know" you need it.
The 70-300L is a great all round lens.
However the 70-300L will give you an extra 100mm, making your 550D and 70-300 equivalent to 480mm with all the L sharpness and goodness.
If you feel later on you need a faster lens, go with the 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii, but by then you will "know" you need it.
The 70-300L is a great all round lens.
Upvote
0
I had the same question. I own the old 70-300 IS and it really lacks IQ at the long end. After watching a youtube of FroKnowsPhoto review of the 70-300L he raises some serious questions.
In the video he is snapping shots of a kid's soccer game. While the pics are tac sharp and the lens is very good in quality, the slow aperture at longer distances limits the amount you can "blow out" the backgrounds.
Both lens will have similar IQ in my opinion. A little different purpose though. I am going with the 70-200 F/4.0L because: 1) seems better for portraits (faster aperture for DOF effects) and 2) ability to use TC.
In the video he is snapping shots of a kid's soccer game. While the pics are tac sharp and the lens is very good in quality, the slow aperture at longer distances limits the amount you can "blow out" the backgrounds.
Both lens will have similar IQ in my opinion. A little different purpose though. I am going with the 70-200 F/4.0L because: 1) seems better for portraits (faster aperture for DOF effects) and 2) ability to use TC.
Upvote
0
birdman said:
It's fine if the 70-200/4 fits your needs, but I'd advise you to really think this through, the 70-300L while being more expensive and having no internal zoom mechanism has a very good size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination and tradeoff. And the points you made are wrong:
The 70-300L is f5@200mm, which isn't really a difference to f4 at ok lighting. For portraits @70-100mm, you might need a faster lens like 2.8+! And even f5.6 is quite enough for a bokeh effect if there is some space behind the object, in fact at tele ranges the dof is extremely thin that even @f5.6 often what you're shooting is not completely in focus.
And: The 70-300L can use a Kenko TC, I've got the 1.4x one, good iq, but obviously af degrades at f8 so tracking is next to impossible. But it's nice to get to 420mm (= 672mm on crop) for some shots. For me, 200mm for outdoors would be not enough, actually I find myself shooting @300mm most of the time. And for indoor shots a prime or 70-200/2.8 it is. I guess that's why a lot of 70-200/4 are sold.
Upvote
0
You may have as many opinions as there are posts here ... 
So I'll shoot mine and I'd go for the 70-200. For sure both are fine lenses. So, it's a matter of how much reach you want to have. But don't forget, between 200mm and 300mm, though it looks a lot of millimeters, the difference is not that huge. A bit like comparing photos made with 50mm and 75mm. You would not say that the difference would blow your mind. The 70-200/4 is a bit cheaper, quite lighter, less bulky and a tad faster. On a 550D, the 70-300 might prove to be a bit heavy/cumbersome. Well, my 2 cts anyway.
So I'll shoot mine and I'd go for the 70-200. For sure both are fine lenses. So, it's a matter of how much reach you want to have. But don't forget, between 200mm and 300mm, though it looks a lot of millimeters, the difference is not that huge. A bit like comparing photos made with 50mm and 75mm. You would not say that the difference would blow your mind. The 70-200/4 is a bit cheaper, quite lighter, less bulky and a tad faster. On a 550D, the 70-300 might prove to be a bit heavy/cumbersome. Well, my 2 cts anyway.
Upvote
0
You'll have to make your own call here. Both lenses are brilliant and you'd be happy with either. If your budget is strong enough, take a look at the 70-200 f/2.8. Personally I'd go for even a pre-owned f/2.8 over and above the two lenses you've mentioned. It's a LOT of photographers favourite lens and a lot of pros main money maker.
Paul Wright
Paul Wright
Upvote
0
birdman said:
I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L, along with the 1.4x tele-extender III.
Couple of comments on the above:
The tele-extender is going to slow down your AF by 50% and you will notice this on the OP's 550D. While faster cameras like the 5D3 and the 1Dx can compensate due to their AF systems speed, I can say the combination of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS rev2 and the 1.4x tele-extender rev3 on the 7D will at times drift off an AF lock when shooting sports like equestrian jumping or professional cycling. It's not bad, but it does happen, at 8 fps I would say 20% of images can be soft on the focus with this combo. However, when it's locked, the images are far sharper than the older version combination of that lens and TC.
On the 5D3 the slowness isn't really much of an impact due to the speed of the AF system in the first place, but I've had the 5D3 for a month not and have not shot that combo much. Am waiting on a 1Dx, so I can't comment on that combo.
On the "blow out the background" comment regarding the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L, at full zoom focal length, while you're not going to get the kind of bokeh you would see at f/4 or at f/2.8 with the pricier 70-200mm, the DOF at 300mm, f/5.6 with a target 25 yards away (75 ft, or about 23 meters) on a crop body is 4.1 feet (about 1.3 meters).
To put that in perspective, that is shooting at an effective 480mm and reaching out to the middle of a football field. That 4.1ft DOF isn't as much as you think it is and you can blow out or blur the background very acceptably on the opposite sidelines.
Performance wise, the 70-300mm does well, it's obviously lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8 and thus easier to manage, the IS performs very well, it has a LOCK switch to stop the lens from being able to zoom or creep if the weight causes it to do so when hanging down. It's fast, the AF is zippy on the 7D and the 5D2 and 5D3.
Negatives on the 70-300mm:
1) slower aperture - yes, if you need the extra stops, this won't be the right lens. However, I've shot this at weddings and receptions with and without flash at ISO's up to 3200 on a 7D without issue. The reach on a 7D in a church or outdoor wedding outweighs the slower aperture when you need focal length.
2) The zoom and manual focus rings are reversed on this lens when compared to the 70-200, the 24-70, the 24-105, 16-35, etc..... In other words, the far ring is the zoom, the near ring is the manual focus. This is frustrating, for one, it breaks what you've learned to do with the zoom ring as you find yourself reaching for the wrong ring at times. Second, it makes you extend your arm further from your body, leading to a more unstable stance when shooting. I like to keep my arm close and tight to solidify my stance. On the 70-300 you have to move your arm further out to handle the zoom ring. It's a PITA, I have no idea why Canon did that. It's the #1 reason I could dump the lens if a new 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS L were to appear.
3) The hood, filter mount and lens extension....the hood "looks" cheap....no fancy tulip design, it's a straight up barrel. It just looks dumpy...but it works. The filter mount is 67mm which means it does not fit the filters I use with the 70-200mm or several other lenses I have...so if you use polarizers or ND's, just know you might be buying more to fit it. Note the lens is not internal focus and extends 2.11" at 300mm full zoom.
4) Variable aperture - you need to account for that in your exposures, especially when shooting in manual mode and tracking/zooming in-out at the same time. The lens max apertures by natural focal length (unadjusted for crop 1.6x body) are:
f/4.0: 70-103mm
f/4.5: 104-154mm
f/5.0: 155-228mm
f/5.6: 229-300mm
Overall, if you can accept the slower AF of the tele-extender combo and more chance of blowing the focus lock, along with the additional but very slight softness it adds (assuming you have the rev3 extender which is way better than the rev2) I would go with the70-200 f/4 and extender....you have greater flexibility.
If you want a solid, light weight, and sharp solution, the 70-300mm is a great choice, assuming you can deal with the reversed focus/zoom rings (god I hate that!!!), this is a great choice.
Frankly, I bought it to use on the 5D3 and the 1Dx in order to recover some of the focal length lost on a full frame body, when compared with the reach the 7D had with the 70-200mm. I'm selling my 5D2 and my 7D once I have the 1Dx in and I've become comfortable with the 5D3. As such, I wanted to recover some reach I'll lose when the 7D is gone, and I didn't want to have to rely on the 1.4x extender on the tele-zooms all the time. I didn't want the current 100-400mm and with no new version of that in sight yet, it came down to either this lens of the 300mm f/4 IS L prime and the 1.4x tele-extender III that I own. The zoom proved to be much more flexible for the same cost and overall sharpness.
Hope this helps you out and gives you some solid info to decide. Above all, if you can, go try one out in a store and see how you feel about the reversed focus/zoom rings....as I said, if a new 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS L comes out and does not have this dumb reversal, that would be the one reason I would sell this lens, however I would have to believe a new version of that lens would run about $2600 and not be available until 18 months after announcing it, given Canon's recent trends.
Upvote
0
sublime LightWorks said:
I can agree to everything that LightWorks wrote - and indeed how bad the "reversed" Nikon-line zoom ring feels is a personal matter, I simply don't notice it at all. One last comment about the 70-300L: For me, the main issue was to overcome the feeling "Hey, I could get a lens with this zoom range and variable aperture for 1000 bucks less!". But the better af does make a difference, it's weather-sealed and the main advantage is that the L is sharp and usable wide open even at 300mm, so you can crop as long as sensor noise allows it.
Upvote
0
sublime LightWorks said:
Great write up: On the above quote there's an easy and cheap solution:
http://www.amazon.com/67-mm-77-mm-Camera-Filter-Adapter/dp/B005EVQ0MM
Upvote
0
K-amps said:
It might be cheap, but it's not 100% easy: You cannot take off or put on the lens hood when the filter extender is screwed on, and putting on a filter through the lens hood barrel might is a hassle. I have a 67mm filter and thus didn't try it, but it looks as 77mm ones might just fit into the hood. I guess 82mm is too large, or you have to shoot w/o hood (bad idea because of flares and less lens protection). Maybe someone who has actually tried it can tell for sure?
Upvote
0
And remember, while we are all calling the 70-300L a lightweight, or lighter than the 70-200, at 1kg it still gives your arm a nice little workout if you are hand holding it for substantial lengths of time.
One other thing I am not overly happy about with the 70-300L, and it is a very small issue, is that you cannot lock or unlock the zoom if the hood is reversed. It only matters from time to time (like when you are preparing to pack the camera away and suddenly you need to take a shot of something), but it would have been great if you could lock and unlock from an area that the hood does not cover when reversed.
One other thing I am not overly happy about with the 70-300L, and it is a very small issue, is that you cannot lock or unlock the zoom if the hood is reversed. It only matters from time to time (like when you are preparing to pack the camera away and suddenly you need to take a shot of something), but it would have been great if you could lock and unlock from an area that the hood does not cover when reversed.
Upvote
0
expatinasia said:
For me, that worked out very fast: When I got the 70-300L, I thought when combined with a flash this is the absolute max weight I'm willing to hold dangling from my hand for an extended period of time. But I have to say after ~2 month of practice, I hardly notice it anymore - so I guess even with the 70-200/2.8 this effect would be there later on.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Deleted member 380853
- Lenses
