Canon Continues to Develop Supertelephoto Zoom

[ecka]

Can't see why "folks with much nicer lenses" (and budget, presumably) would consider the 70-300L. Instead, I would get the 100-400L'II, which can produce more than decent pictures with TCs.

It's the 'I am bringing less volume of gear on a family vaca' sort of lens.

That's zero knock on the 70-300L as a fine optical instrument -- I'm just saying that it is often used as a travel lens due to its size. L quality + 300mm reach + not very big for $1349 is a fairly compelling offering

- A

Still, how is it better than the 70-200F4L? Which is a lighter lens of similar volume.

 

[AlanF]

Ecka: yes, yes, yes and yes. I have done these tests over and over again in different ways, sometimes with liveview, sometimes hand-held with speeds of 1/2000s or faster, and at various distances and I always get the same trends. Sometimes the 100-400 II is better than the Sigma at 388, sometimes the other way around. But, always there is a stark improvement in resolution on going to 560mm with the DO II or 600mm with the Sigma. The 300/2.8II + 2xTC is also very similar to the Sigma at 600.

Here is a Nikon 200-500 vs Sigma 150-600mm C vs Sport vs Tamron where the C is very close to the Nikon and better than the Sport and Tamron.

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-nikkor-af-s-200-500mm-f5-6e-ed-vr-review/

and another similar review for the lenses pointing out the C is sharp in the centre throughout the focal length range.

https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c/

TDP has the 200-500 very soft! Other reviews give different results for all the lenses. The only thing that counts is your lens on your body under your conditions of use.

 

[ahsanford]

Can't see why "folks with much nicer lenses" (and budget, presumably) would consider the 70-300L. Instead, I would get the 100-400L'II, which can produce more than decent pictures with TCs.

It's the 'I am bringing less volume of gear on a family vaca' sort of lens.

That's zero knock on the 70-300L as a fine optical instrument -- I'm just saying that it is often used as a travel lens due to its size. L quality + 300mm reach + not very big for $1349 is a fairly compelling offering

- A

Still, how is it better than the 70-200F4L? Which is a lighter lens of similar volume.

You know. That whole bit about covering 201-300mm.

Some folks prefer 24-70 f/4, while others prefer 24-105 f/4. It's a vaguely similar debate with 70-200 vs. 70-300, but of course the 70-300 is both variable aperture and externally zooming (which helps keep it so small).

- A

 

[unfocused]

Can't see why "folks with much nicer lenses" (and budget, presumably) would consider the 70-300L. Instead, I would get the 100-400L'II, which can produce more than decent pictures with TCs.

For travel. The 70-300L's shorter retracted length allows it to fit 'vertically' in a typical photo backpack, whereas the 70-200/4 needs to lay 'flat' and take up two slots; the 100-400 is too big for a travel zoom, IMO.

I guess some folks are choosing lenses for their backpacks, while other folks are choosing backpacks for their lenses . IMHO, if 70-300L is enough, then 70-200F4L can do even better + it is lighter. Now, honestly, if it is not a photography oriented trip, then I wouldn't take any of these L lenses. Otherwise, it is the 70-200F4L for me, or the 100-400L'II if I decide to become a professional photographer .

Neuro is correct. Every lens has its purpose. 70-200 f2.8 perfect for indoor sports. 70-300 perfect for traveling when you need to meet personal and airline weight and space needs. 100-400 perfect for wildlife and bird oriented vacations (unless you can manage a big white -- but that creates all sorts of other carrying complications.)

I own all three and use them accordingly. I would never use the 100-400 when on vacation in a city or countryside, where I'm unlikely to encounter wildlife to shoot and carrying it around is going to make me miserable after a few hours. For me, a 70-200 is too short for a do-it-all vacation zoom.

 

[Loswr]

Can't see why "folks with much nicer lenses" (and budget, presumably) would consider the 70-300L. Instead, I would get the 100-400L'II, which can produce more than decent pictures with TCs.

For travel. The 70-300L's shorter retracted length allows it to fit 'vertically' in a typical photo backpack, whereas the 70-200/4 needs to lay 'flat' and take up two slots; the 100-400 is too big for a travel zoom, IMO.

I guess some folks are choosing lenses for their backpacks, while other folks are choosing backpacks for their lenses . IMHO, if 70-300L is enough, then 70-200F4L can do even better + it is lighter. Now, honestly, if it is not a photography oriented trip, then I wouldn't take any of these L lenses. Otherwise, it is the 70-200F4L for me, or the 100-400L'II if I decide to become a professional photographer .

And now you know why Canon offers so many 70-xxx telezooms.

Incidentally, the 70-200/4 does very poorly in the 200-300mm range, which makes it far from "do even better" (unless you add a TC, in which case you can throw your lighter argument out the window, unless you really feel that 65 g makes a difference).

Personally, with three young kids I do not have the opportunity for trips oriented solely toward photography. But on a trip to France with the family, or a business trip to Italy, I want the best quality images that I can get with the time I have. That usually means L lenses.

 

[ahsanford]

Every lens has its purpose. 70-200 f2.8 perfect for indoor sports and a jillion other things. 70-300 perfect for traveling when you need to meet personal and airline weight and space needs. 100-400 perfect for wildlife and bird oriented vacations (unless you can manage a big white -- but that creates all sorts of other carrying complications.)

Corrected your post above.

- A

 

[ecka]

Can't see why "folks with much nicer lenses" (and budget, presumably) would consider the 70-300L. Instead, I would get the 100-400L'II, which can produce more than decent pictures with TCs.

For travel. The 70-300L's shorter retracted length allows it to fit 'vertically' in a typical photo backpack, whereas the 70-200/4 needs to lay 'flat' and take up two slots; the 100-400 is too big for a travel zoom, IMO.

I guess some folks are choosing lenses for their backpacks, while other folks are choosing backpacks for their lenses . IMHO, if 70-300L is enough, then 70-200F4L can do even better + it is lighter. Now, honestly, if it is not a photography oriented trip, then I wouldn't take any of these L lenses. Otherwise, it is the 70-200F4L for me, or the 100-400L'II if I decide to become a professional photographer .

And now you know why Canon offers so many 70-xxx telezooms.

Incidentally, the 70-200/4 does very poorly in the 200-300mm range, which makes it far from "do even better" (unless you add a TC, in which case you can throw your lighter argument out the window, unless you really feel that 65 g makes a difference).

Personally, with three young kids I do not have the opportunity for trips oriented solely toward photography. But on a trip to France with the family, or a business trip to Italy, I want the best quality images that I can get with the time I have. That usually means L lenses.

Yes, I've heard the same thing about the 70-300L, pretty often actually ... about its 150-200mm sweet spot. And theres that thing about sweet spots in zooms - if there is one, for me it becomes a prime lens (and I already have my APO150F2.8Macro).
Aren't you bringing a TC for your 70-300L anyways? Oh, wait, I remember now, it doesn't really support those
Some say that the new 70-300 IS II is very close to 70-300L IQ-wise, so, you know ...
I think maybe something like EF-S 55-250 STM could work for a family vacation with a small Point&Shoot DSLR (Rebel series) or a mirrorless M.

 

[ecka]

Can't see why "folks with much nicer lenses" (and budget, presumably) would consider the 70-300L. Instead, I would get the 100-400L'II, which can produce more than decent pictures with TCs.

For travel. The 70-300L's shorter retracted length allows it to fit 'vertically' in a typical photo backpack, whereas the 70-200/4 needs to lay 'flat' and take up two slots; the 100-400 is too big for a travel zoom, IMO.

I guess some folks are choosing lenses for their backpacks, while other folks are choosing backpacks for their lenses . IMHO, if 70-300L is enough, then 70-200F4L can do even better + it is lighter. Now, honestly, if it is not a photography oriented trip, then I wouldn't take any of these L lenses. Otherwise, it is the 70-200F4L for me, or the 100-400L'II if I decide to become a professional photographer .

Neuro is correct. Every lens has its purpose. 70-200 f2.8 perfect for indoor sports. 70-300 perfect for traveling when you need to meet personal and airline weight and space needs. 100-400 perfect for wildlife and bird oriented vacations (unless you can manage a big white -- but that creates all sorts of other carrying complications.)

I own all three and use them accordingly. I would never use the 100-400 when on vacation in a city or countryside, where I'm unlikely to encounter wildlife to shoot and carrying it around is going to make me miserable after a few hours. For me, a 70-200 is too short for a do-it-all vacation zoom.

For each his own. I guess it all depends on what kind of a trip you are going to.
But seriously ... the 200F4 is too short and 300F5.6 is fine? Whaaat?.. ??? Why not just use a TC?

 

[ecka]

Can't see why "folks with much nicer lenses" (and budget, presumably) would consider the 70-300L. Instead, I would get the 100-400L'II, which can produce more than decent pictures with TCs.

It's the 'I am bringing less volume of gear on a family vaca' sort of lens.

That's zero knock on the 70-300L as a fine optical instrument -- I'm just saying that it is often used as a travel lens due to its size. L quality + 300mm reach + not very big for $1349 is a fairly compelling offering

- A

Still, how is it better than the 70-200F4L? Which is a lighter lens of similar volume.

You know. That whole bit about covering 201-300mm.

Some folks prefer 24-70 f/4, while others prefer 24-105 f/4. It's a vaguely similar debate with 70-200 vs. 70-300, but of course the 70-300 is both variable aperture and externally zooming (which helps keep it so small).

- A

OK, but I'm not seeing the smallness of the 70-300L there. One is tall and thin. The other is short, fat and weights over 1kg, which is why I'm considering the 100-400L'II as a better choice.

 

[MrFotoFool]

OK, but I'm not seeing the smallness of the 70-300L there. One is tall and thin. The other is short, fat and weights over 1kg, which is why I'm considering the 100-400L'II as a better choice.

The "smallness" of the variable aperture 70-300 is in the height (not the weight or girth). It is not "tall and thin" like the other one, as you observe. In a small camera bag this can make the difference. Assuming neither lens is attached to a body when you store it, the 70-300 will fit sitting upright in a regular compartment whereas the 100-400 must lay flat, taking the equivalent space of two smaller compartments. For the record I still use the 100-400 myself.

 

[Loswr]

Yes, I've heard the same thing about the 70-300L, pretty often actually ... about its 150-200mm sweet spot.

Well, I'm not sure who you're listening to, but what has your own experience with the 70-300L been like? Oh, you have none? Yeah, I figured as much.

For each his own. I guess it all depends on what kind of a trip you are going to.
But seriously ... the 200F4 is too short and 300F5.6 is fine? Whaaat?.. ??? Why not just use a TC?

You must have a magical, weightless and collapsible 1.4x TC, because you continue to compare the 70-300L to the 70-200/4L + 1.4x as if the TC adds neither weight nor size.

Why not just use a TC? Oh my, 200mm is too short. Here, let me dig the TC out of my bag, juggle the removal of the lens and mount the TC then remount the lens. Hey, wait...what happened to blue hour?!? Damn, I missed it. Oh well, I'll just take the shot tomorrow. Except I'll be on a plane then.

 

[ecka]

Yes, I've heard the same thing about the 70-300L, pretty often actually ... about its 150-200mm sweet spot.

Well, I'm not sure who you're listening to, but what has your own experience with the 70-300L been like? Oh, you have none? Yeah, I figured as much.

For each his own. I guess it all depends on what kind of a trip you are going to.
But seriously ... the 200F4 is too short and 300F5.6 is fine? Whaaat?.. ??? Why not just use a TC?

You must have a magical, weightless and collapsible 1.4x TC, because you continue to compare the 70-300L to the 70-200/4L + 1.4x as if the TC adds neither weight nor size.

Why not just use a TC? Oh my, 200mm is too short. Here, let me dig the TC out of my bag, juggle the removal of the lens and mount the TC then remount the lens. Hey, wait...what happened to blue hour?!? Damn, I missed it. Oh well, I'll just take the shot tomorrow. Except I'll be on a plane then.

you are funny
Can't you just put it on and leave it there? It wouldn't hurt more than using the 70-300L anyways.
Perhaps the 70-200F4L with a TC is close to 70-300L in size, volume and price. I just don't have the need for a separate tele lens for each and every purpose, which I believe is your way of doing it (not judging).
I thought your "bag" is nicely organized. Turns out you have to dig for things when you need them. Not cool, Neuro
Still, I think 200F4 is enough for non-wildlife. If it's not, then (for me) the first thing to do is to get a 5DsR, not a heavier lens. Maybe even a smaller one with a crop camera, like 80D + 55-250 STM combo (400mm equivalent), which would weight (and cost) about as much as the 70-300L alone.

 

[ahsanford]

Why not just use a TC? Oh my, 200mm is too short. Here, let me dig the TC out of my bag, juggle the removal of the lens and mount the TC then remount the lens. Hey, wait...what happened to blue hour?!? Damn, I missed it.

Not to mention that T/Cs nerf your AF. Even at a resultant f/5.6, I'd love to see a speed test on how quickly and accurately the T/C performs compared to another USM L lens sans teleconverter.

I'm not saying the longer FL multiplier lens always wins -- I generally prefer shorter FL multipliers for better IQ myself. But sometimes convenience, size in your bag, and long end reach is worth the compromise.

And travel/vaca is exactly that time, IMHO.

- A

 

[ecka]

OK, but I'm not seeing the smallness of the 70-300L there. One is tall and thin. The other is short, fat and weights over 1kg, which is why I'm considering the 100-400L'II as a better choice.

The "smallness" of the variable aperture 70-300 is in the height (not the weight or girth). It is not "tall and thin" like the other one, as you observe. In a small camera bag this can make the difference. Assuming neither lens is attached to a body when you store it, the 70-300 will fit sitting upright in a regular compartment whereas the 100-400 must lay flat, taking the equivalent space of two smaller compartments. For the record I still use the 100-400 myself.

Depends on the bag. I think it is wrong to buy lenses for your bag, rather than a proper bag for your lenses. I can put my Bugma in my bag with the lens hood on it (well, you can't do that trick with fiddly Canon hoods) + another 2 or 3 primes if I need them, and it's not a backpack.

 

[Loswr]

Can't you just put it on and leave it there? It wouldn't hurt more than using the 70-300L anyways.

And then need to remove it for the 70-100mm range, or swap lenses to the 24-70? The point is to maximize flexibility, and unquestionably the 70-300L does that better than the 70-200±1.4x over that range.

Still, I think 200F4 is enough for non-wildlife. If it's not, then (for me) the first thing to do is to get a 5DsR, not a heavier lens. Maybe even a smaller one with a crop camera, like 80D + 55-250 STM combo (400mm equivalent), which would weight (and cost) about as much as the 70-300L alone.

Carrying two full-size dSLRs on a trip doesn't make much sense (a backup body is nice, but one of the small EOS M bodies does that effectively). For reasons of both image quality and wide angle use, the main camera needs to be full frame. A 5Ds is actually a good option (not certain about the R personally, given the amount of architecture that I shoot and the potential for moiré).

Depends on the bag. I think it is wrong to buy lenses for your bag, rather than a proper bag for your lenses. I can put my Bugma in my bag with the lens hood on it (well, you can't do that trick with fiddly Canon hoods) + another 2 or 3 primes if I need them, and it's not a backpack.

It's not about buying lenses to fit a bag, that is a silly contention (one that you have made more than once). The problem is, a bag with compartments deep enough to hold a 70-200/4 vertically means a couple of inches of wasted headroom above any standard lens (and I usually carry 2-3 of those), whereas the 70-300L fits in a compartment that holds standard lenses with a minimum of wasted space. If you want to carry around a needlessly bulky bag full of wasted space, that's your choice. Personally, I abhor wasted space in a camera bag (which is why I have a backpack for 3-4 lenses, a backpack for 5-6 lenses, a backpack for 2-3 lenses plus a laptop, a modular system for a camera with one lens of varying size to which I can add a lens case or a flash pouch, etc.).

 

[ecka]

Can't you just put it on and leave it there? It wouldn't hurt more than using the 70-300L anyways.

And then need to remove it for the 70-100mm range, or swap lenses to the 24-70? The point is to maximize flexibility, and unquestionably the 70-300L does that better than the 70-200±1.4x over that range.

And what do you do when you need something longer than 300mm? Well, you may say that you don't need more than 300mm. But this is exactly how I feel about the 200-300mm range. Only I have the TC option.

Still, I think 200F4 is enough for non-wildlife. If it's not, then (for me) the first thing to do is to get a 5DsR, not a heavier lens. Maybe even a smaller one with a crop camera, like 80D + 55-250 STM combo (400mm equivalent), which would weight (and cost) about as much as the 70-300L alone.

Carrying two full-size dSLRs on a trip doesn't make much sense (a backup body is nice, but one of the small EOS M bodies does that effectively). For reasons of both image quality and wide angle use, the main camera needs to be full frame. A 5Ds is actually a good option (not certain about the R personally, given the amount of architecture that I shoot and the potential for moiré).

Yes, you can put it on M, if you like. But, who said anything about "two full-size dSLRs"? Not me, I only need one. I meant 'instead'. Full frame is very much preferable, but when you have to make a compromise you don't have many options - to lug a heavy cannon, or to crop it and accept lower quality. I don't think that 5DsR would spoil anything. Even if you don't crop it, those high-res images it produces are amazing. I don't print much, but on my 43" 4K IPS monitor they look very "delicious". I've edited hundreds of 5DsR RAW samples and I didn't find moire problems. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong , so don't quote me on that.

Depends on the bag. I think it is wrong to buy lenses for your bag, rather than a proper bag for your lenses. I can put my Bugma in my bag with the lens hood on it (well, you can't do that trick with fiddly Canon hoods) + another 2 or 3 primes if I need them, and it's not a backpack.

It's not about buying lenses to fit a bag, that is a silly contention (one that you have made more than once).

OK

The problem is, a bag with compartments deep enough to hold a 70-200/4 vertically means a couple of inches of wasted headroom above any standard lens (and I usually carry 2-3 of those), whereas the 70-300L fits in a compartment that holds standard lenses with a minimum of wasted space. If you want to carry around a needlessly bulky bag full of wasted space, that's your choice. Personally, I abhor wasted space in a camera bag (which is why I have a backpack for 3-4 lenses, a backpack for 5-6 lenses, a backpack for 2-3 lenses plus a laptop, a modular system for a camera with one lens of varying size to which I can add a lens case or a flash pouch, etc.).

And here we go ... you are doing it again. You have a bag and you pick what fits in it. Perhaps the problem is that I have a different bag. So, let's agree to disagree

 

[AlanF]

What has any of this to do with supertelephoto zoom?

 

[MrFotoFool]

What has any of this to do with supertelephoto zoom?

Because now we will have to buy yet another camera bag to carry it!

 

[AlanF]

What has any of this to do with supertelephoto zoom?

Because now we will have to buy yet another camera bag to carry it!

Read the previous mail. First buy the bag, then look for lenses that fit it!

 

[LonelyBoy]

Why can't we all just do whatever we prefer for our shooting, whether that's vacations or pets or children or studio? Are we all so insecure that if the entire rest of the forum doesn't agree with our methods and priorities we freak out?

Heck, if someone buys a tripod and then picks a camera to accommodate that, strange as it would be, does that really offend anyone?