70-300L anyone?

[briansquibb]

why don't people like it when you say you think the 70-300 is sharper than the 70-200?

I don't know... but I have usually gotten smited after bringing it up .

I suspect it's hard to come to terms that a $2500 is not sharper than a $1600 lens that they got. The Mk.II has gotten rave reviews and is considered very sharp (and it is). Myself I figured I'd sell my 70-300L after buying the 70-200 mk.ii, but have not been able to yet... lets see how long I can keep both.

Both are good lens.

They do a different jobs but as they are both good their functionality overlaps rather.

I think we should agree that they are both very sharp with the 70-200 strength being low light and the 70-300 being as a lightweight travel/walkabout lens

I will be keeping both

 

[well_dunno]

Brian, +1 for 1000th post

 

[briansquibb]

Brian, +1 for 1000th post

 

[Marsu42]

why don't people like it when you say you think the 70-300 is sharper than the 70-200?

I don't know... but I have usually gotten smited after bringing it up .

Both are good lens. I think we should agree that they are both very sharp

Are you kidding me? Keep away from me with your commie equality talk - you're ruining my favorite past time until my 70-300L arrives and I actually can take pictures instead of writing forum posts )

 

[dunkers]

If I didn't need the 2.8 of the 70-200, I would have purchased the 70-300L.

I tested it at a store once and was amazed at how sharp and fast the AF was. I will say that the swapping of the focus ring and zoom ring will take a little time to get used to. I really liked the compact size of the 70-300L as well.

I hope to pick up a copy in the future. I would much rather take it on travels than the heavy 70-200.