70-200/70-300

[K-amps]

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.

Looks like you are not happy with the lens... curious, have you taken pics swith it? What are your thoughts.

 

[expatinasia]

Looks like you are not happy with the lens... curious, have you taken pics swith it? What are your thoughts.

It should not sound that way, perhaps I expressed myself badly as I am very happy with the lens.

I mentioned the weight as the OP is called Barbara so weight may or may not be an issue for her. Either way it is something else for her to consider.

As for the other issues I mentioned they are all super minor: poor lens bag, lack of tripod collar at purchase, and a desire to have the lock switch somewhere the hood does not cover when it is reversed. All super, super minor issues.

Yes, I love the lens.

 

[cezargalang]

I have tried the 70-200 F4 IS USM and it's a very good, lightweight lens. I have yet to try the 70-300 L, and the reviews really make me want to try it. You can't go wrong with either lens. Something to consider when you buy is the focal length and aperture, is 200 f4 good enough for you or do you need a 300 5.6?

Also shooting in low light, where the f4 would have a small advantage.

I can't think of anything else, i hope this helps. ;D

 

[wockawocka]

I vote 70-200.

Both are really sharp lenses but I prefer a constant aperture. You wouldn't want to zoom in quickly to something only to find that the settings change. But I do shoot in manual...but even in an auto mode in the day at 300mm you'll need to be around ISO400-800 as the minimum aperture is 4.5 at 300mm?

I have had the 70-300 and I liked it a lot, size mainly, but the lens hood doesn't fit compactly over the lens and you can't use teleconvertors. Whereas you could get the 70-200 and a kenko 1.4x at be at 280mm.

You have to wonder if you'd ever use the extra reach that a crop body affords you, I mean, 480mm reach, that's LONG and totally useless unless you're shooting wildlife, or the moon. The reason it's rubbish is because of compression. The longer the focal length the more atmospheric interference (mist, smog, pollution) there is between you and your subject that gets compressed, it doesn't go away, this can make your images a bit dull.

 

[briansquibb]

I vote 70-200.

Both are really sharp lenses but I prefer a constant aperture. You wouldn't want to zoom in quickly to something only to find that the settings change. But I do shoot in manual...but even in an auto mode in the day at 300mm you'll need to be around ISO400-800 as the minimum aperture is 4.5 at 300mm?

I have had the 70-300 and I liked it a lot, size mainly, but the lens hood doesn't fit compactly over the lens and you can't use teleconvertors. Whereas you could get the 70-200 and a kenko 1.4x at be at 280mm.

You have to wonder if you'd ever use the extra reach that a crop body affords you, I mean, 480mm reach, that's LONG and totally useless unless you're shooting wildlife, or the moon. The reason it's rubbish is because of compression. The longer the focal length the more atmospheric interference (mist, smog, pollution) there is between you and your subject that gets compressed, it doesn't go away, this can make your images a bit dull.

300mm on crop makes for good street shooting. Just because it has 300 at the long end doen't mean you have to use it all the time

The 70-300L is as sharp as the 70-200 up to 200 -so why saddle yourself with the extra weight? I makes a great portrait lens at 70 @ f/4 - plenty of contrast there.

 

[Marsu42]

Also shooting in low light, where the f4 would have a small advantage.

I don't think f4@200mm is a lot of difference to f5@220mm (70-300L) ... both are not low-light lenses, everyone who gets one of these has to face it, at least with a crop sensor because with the 5d3 you can just use a higher iso setting.

Both are really sharp lenses but I prefer a constant aperture. I have had the 70-300 and I liked it a lot, size mainly, but the lens hood doesn't fit compactly over the lens and you can't use teleconvertors. Whereas you could get the 70-200 and a kenko 1.4x at be at 280mm.

You have to wonder if you'd ever use the extra reach that a crop body affords you, I mean, 480mm reach, that's LONG and totally useless unless you're shooting wildlife, or the moon. The reason it's rubbish is because of compression. The longer the focal length the more atmospheric interference (mist, smog, pollution) there is between you and your subject that gets compressed, it doesn't go away, this can make your images a bit dull.

I can understand that many people want and have use for a constant min. aperture. But your other points are wrong: The 70-300L does work w/ a Kenko tc, though at af 8 - for the 70-200L I'd get the Canon because of weather sealing. And atmospheric interference doesn't really matter when you shoot a bird that's sitting a few meters in front of you - I don't think people use their tele lenses to shoot something at the other end of the horizon (480mm does nice sunset shots, though).

 

[wockawocka]

Both are really sharp lenses but I prefer a constant aperture. I have had the 70-300 and I liked it a lot, size mainly, but the lens hood doesn't fit compactly over the lens and you can't use teleconvertors. Whereas you could get the 70-200 and a kenko 1.4x at be at 280mm.

You have to wonder if you'd ever use the extra reach that a crop body affords you, I mean, 480mm reach, that's LONG and totally useless unless you're shooting wildlife, or the moon. The reason it's rubbish is because of compression. The longer the focal length the more atmospheric interference (mist, smog, pollution) there is between you and your subject that gets compressed, it doesn't go away, this can make your images a bit dull.

I can understand that many people want and have use for a constant min. aperture. But your other points are wrong: The 70-300L does work w/ a Kenko tc, though at af 8 - for the 70-200L I'd get the Canon because of weather sealing. And atmospheric interference doesn't really matter when you shoot a bird that's sitting a few meters in front of you - I don't think people use their tele lenses to shoot something at the other end of the horizon (480mm does nice sunset shots, though).

300mm on crop makes for good street shooting. Just because it has 300 at the long end doen't mean you have to use it all the time

The 70-300L is as sharp as the 70-200 up to 200 -so why saddle yourself with the extra weight? I makes a great portrait lens at 70 @ f/4 - plenty of contrast there.

760 grams (70-200) vs 1050 grams (70-300) according the Canon.

Lighter, constant aperture and if he needs the reach he can use a TC.
A lot of togs get all romantic about reach when most rarely use anything past 200mm.

 

[Marsu42]

A lot of togs get all romantic about reach when most rarely use anything past 200mm.

This really depends on what you're shooting, and while it's correct that 300mm is not that much as 200mm, but as I already wrote I find myself either @70mm or @300mm all the time because the latter starts to count as a quick macro replacement. And with a 1.4 tc that doesn't drag down iq too much it's 672mm (300x1.4x1.6) in comparison to 448mm (200x1.4x1.6) on a crop.

Concerning the weight: The length of the lens is a major factor here since this creates the torsion you're feeling in the wrist. That's why a 70-200/2.8 feels much more heavy to me than the actual difference to a 70-300L is, you can feel this effect with the 70-200/4 to a lesser extent, too.

I'd advise anyone looking for a tele lens to rent it first to see if the zoom range fits one's needs. Of course everything is expandable with a tc, but apart from lower light this slows down af significantly. But the real issue with a tc is the need to put it on and off near the sensor - when being outdoors, this is bound to get dirt inside the body, and it's tiresome to begin with.

But I'm really not a 70-300L fanboy just because I've got it, I'd exchange it for a 70-200/2.8is2 for free anytime, and since there are many used 70-200/4 available, of course it's a good choice too.

 

[chemistone]

I've bought the 70-300L on a special occasion with 200 euro discount, very close to 1000 euro, a price of which I feel is right for the lens. It is the first superzoom I own, my father has a 70-200L without IS. The 200 euro discount was a safety net for me, when I would not use the lens that much, I could sell it for about 1000euros and have a limited loss. Am I gonna sell it? No! I like it a lot. I can now make the shots I previously missed (in the zoo, streetphotos, from my kids off guard, etc) I feel 200mm would be too short for most of them. As the previous poster I will exchange it for a 70-200L 2.8IS MkII for free . I like the size and the weight of it, I can easily carry it for a day in the zoo. I like the reach, I like the sharpness. However I also understand now why people want fast zooms. Backgrounds are nicely blurred, when there is enough space between the background and the subject, but could be better.
As with all lenses, it is a compromise between weight, range, light sensitivity and picture quality and it is a very good compromise. Could it have been better, yes. A 70-300L 2.8 IS for the same price and with the same weight would be nice.
A friend of me borrowed it for a day comparing it to his 70-200L IS F4 lens and he liked my a lot. The best picture of his 70-200L was marginally better than the best pic of my 70-300L, furthermore the 70-300L produced pictures that were comparable or slightly better than his 70-200LIS F4. Basicly it is a draw, you cannot go wrong with either of the two lenses. Do you need the extra reach of the 300L or do you need the F4 capability of the 70-200L and do you have the extra money for the 300?

 

[plutonium10]

I have the 70-300 L and I love it except for the zoom and focus ring placement. You get used to it after a while but the focus ring on my copy turns quite freely so it's easy to knock a picture out of focus if you aren't careful. I had lots of OOF shots the first day I got it and was really concerned that the AF was missing 20% of the time! Then I realized that I had been inadvertantly changing focus just by brushing the MF ring, so I changed the way I grip the lens and problem solved. As mentioned, this lens is heavier than the 70-200 f4, but I have tried both and it helps that the 70-300's weight is closer to the camera since it's a shorter lens. If you don't need faster than 5.6, it's an all around great lens with good optical quality, robust build and fast focusing.