Lens? 70-300 F4-5.6IS vs 100 2.0 and 200 2.8?

[droch]

Hi All

I'm looking at upgrading my zoom. I have an old 75-300 and I'm looking at moving to the new 70-300 F4-5.6 IS or two primes a used copy of a 100 f2 and a 200 f2.8 mark 1. I don't really want to go for the 70-200 f4 IS because it just seems a little onerous to carry around its too more than I want to spend and its in your face white.

Would I be able to crop the 200 to get similar a 300 aspect while keeping reasonable IQ?

Is it worth spending the extra on two primes? or is the 70-300 really as good as I read about?

As for what I shoot, its mostly landscape/city scape... I'd like to start taking action shots as I'm getting bored with landscape at the moment.

I'm currently shooting with a 5D classic.

Thanks for the advice.

Dan

 

[birdman]

Re: Lens? 70-300IS vs 100 2.0 and 200 2.8?

I started a thread about that same lens entitled "70-300L anyone"

Based on all I saw from sample pics posted, and what I read, it looks marvelous. I want it, too.

I say buy it used for no more than $1,200 and it should be all you need. Bokeh looks great. Contrast is great. Range is great. Weight and size is great. Speed is just average.

The 100/2 and 200/2.8 are both good in their own right. Very different applications though. No IS, especially on the 200, really tethers you to a monopod or tripod. Yes, either is certainly a hair or two sharper than the 70-300L.

I think exotic lens elements, and newer lens coatings will make the 70-300 have better colors and contrast. Just my 2 cents. If you want another cheap alternative, get the also lightweight 70-200/4 IS and the 85/1.8. You could always add an extender later to give you better coverage. You have options--especially with Canon

 

[droch]

Thanks Birdman

I'll take a look at your post. I should have been more specific as I was referring to the the cheaper 70-300 F4-5.6 IS.

I didn't know the new coatings made that much of difference for colours, I'll keep that in mind when looking at older lenses.

Dan

 

[dr croubie]

Re: Lens? 70-300IS vs 100 2.0 and 200 2.8?

Which lens did you mean, the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, or the L version of the same?
I've had both, I bought the non-L when I got my 7D (about a month before the L was announced, if i'd have known i'd have waited).
Anyway:
The non-L, in the 70-200 range, is pretty good. It's light, carryable, the focussing is fairly fast, the only downside is that the front element rotates (although I had no problems using CPLs with it). It's cheaper than the 70-200 f/4L, and a lot cheaper than the f/4 L IS, and the IQ isn't so bad.
However, once you get into the 200-300mm range, the whole thing falls apart. I can't be nice, it's just soft.
But if you view it as a cheap 70-200 IS USM, with the occasional use in 200-300mm, it's worth the price.

I ended up selling it, and upgrading to the 70-300L, because I really wanted the 300mm range for birds. You can't go wrong with it, IQ is great, it's more compact than the 70-200L range, and it's built like a tank. But it is expensive, more than the 70-200 f/4L IS.

As for the 100mm f/2.0, i've got that too, and love it also. It's a very underrated lens (presumably because everyone else who wants a 100mm prime sacrifices a stop and gets an f/2.8 Macro, or else they go for the 85/1.8 or 135/2L), it's sharp and it's fast and it's compact. I've been using it a lot for portraits of people on stage from the back of the room.
I don't have the 200/2.8 but i've got a Zeiss Sonnar 180/2.8 which I was also using at the same time (that's a huge 1.1kg lens that requires a tripod though). Great headshots from across the room with my 7D, head and shoulders with a 5D2.

So i'd say it depends on usage. Going hiking? Like birds? Travelling small (not necessarily light)? Get the 70-300L. Can't afford that? Get the 70-300 IS USM, just be aware that it's really a 70-200 IS USM (but the IQ is nearly as good as the 70-200L for less price and slower aperture).
Shoot concerts, indoors, low-light, portraits? Go the 100/2.0 and 200/2.8 double.

 

[Marsu42]

I'm looking at upgrading my zoom. I have an old 75-300 and I'm looking at moving to the new 70-300 F4-5.6 IS or two primes a used copy of a 100 f2 and a 200 f2.8 mark 1. I don't really want to go for the 70-200 f4 IS because it just seems a little onerous to carry around its too more than I want to spend and its in your face white.

Since you don't seem to want a white lens, I guess you're talking about the 70-300 non-L. However, don't underestimate the ego boost a white lens gives you, people around you will see you as a "real" photographer and try to justify why they just got a tiny camera and left their "real" stuff at home

My advice: Avoid a cheap zoom at all costs, either get a good (i.e. expensive, not necessarily a red ring) one or primes. At low to medium iso, you will get much better pictures with a short sharp lens and a cropped picture than with a blurry tele zoom. I've got the 100/2.8 non-L macro - actually, you might want to have a look at these, too, they are quite cheap when used and don't have an IS that could be worn down. The 100/2 is said to be even sharper, and you'll love the low light and small dof capability if needed. Of course, you mustn't be afraid of constantly changing lenses when traveling.