70-200 f4 L or 70-300 f4-5.6?

[Tigger]

Re: 70-200 f4 L or 70-300 f4-5.6?

To be honest this surprises me as I've not seen anyone else decry the 70-200mm f 4.0 at any length and posters on this forum extoll its virtues, I've used my brothers and If I didn't already own the 70-300mm L lens I would have bought this lens in an instant that being said you could have an iffy copy, as posted with the 1.4 it extends the reach to 280mm which is not that far of the 300mm the O.P is interested in

Gordon

I'm with Gordon I don't think I've ever seen a negative comment on this lens..

[GORDH]

Re: 70-200 f4 L or 70-300 f4-5.6?

When I played around with my brothers 70-200mm Ian I was blown away by the quality, we were trying to compare it to my recently acquired 70-300mm L lens and even pixel peeping it was sharp all the way through even wide open and try as I might I couldn't find a thing wrong with it, this was an eye opener as its such a cheap lens (well for L quality anyway) and he bought it second hand for less than an independent lens brand new, I'd advise anyone to go for this lens as I said its the most bang for the buck in Canons lens repertoire,

Hectopaljr, if it was me I'd get your lens checked out as it shouldn't be soft at the 200mm end something sounds wrong especially as you say the "cheap Sigma 70-300 APO is sharper at the 200 end"

Gordon

[Nathaniel]

Re: 70-200 f4 L or 70-300 f4-5.6?

I use the 70-200 f4L non IS lens with a 1.4 TC and I have never needed the IS for my birds in flight shots. I keep the shutter speed between 1600 -2000 depending on how fast the birds are. You should be quite happy with the 70-200mm f4L non IS.

[baillieswells]

Re: 70-200 f4 L or 70-300 f4-5.6?

What you need to do is to try and test both lenses together. Is an image from the 70-200 mm L lens cropped to the equivalent to 300mm, as good or better than the non L 70-300mm. At the other end, how do the 70 mm images compare?

[the black fox]

Re: 70-200 f4 L or 70-300 f4-5.6?

rob your not stating what your targets will be .if its wildlife then you will need more reach if its general walkabout then a zoom is needed ,and if for instance your using it full reach all the time then why not simply go for the 300mm f4 prime to which you could add when funds allow the 1.4 tc and still get a/f and 420mm reach .to me a 70-300 lens is a jack of all trades but master of none .

[the black fox]

Re: 70-200 f4 L or 70-300 f4-5.6?

having just aquired a 70-200mm f4 L NON-I.S lens off of my lad .i took a few test shots today and to be honest the i/q blew me away ,i have posted a couple of shots to the nature thread but heres one of them ,no messing about ,straight on the 70d walked to the front gate as a gull landed on the roof ,upped exp compensation and aperture to 5.6 and fired away .the proof of the pudding they say is in the eating so

practice 2 by blackfox wildlife and nature imaging, on Flickr

[cjf999]

Re: 70-200 f4 L or 70-300 f4-5.6?

Great shot blackfox. I have to agree with everyone this is a great lens likewise I am very pleased with it.

[DrJon]

Re: 70-200 f4 L or 70-300 f4-5.6?

It depends on budget IMHO. A 70-200 f4 with the 1.4x extender III will be better at 280mm equiv. than the 70-300 IS at 300, but it'll cost more and not have IS.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=358&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

I'd say if you don't need IS and can live with 200mm as the max focal length the 70-200 is a no-brainer, otherwise it's complicated.

[Nathaniel]

Re: 70-200 f4 L or 70-300 f4-5.6?

Coming back to this again. the 70-200mm is a brilliant lens. I take a lot of theatre and concert pictures with this lens. Add a 1.4 TC and it becomes 280mm. With a crop body,this lens + 1.4TC gives you 448mm, which is Ok for most pictures of wild life. iwould say "go for it" if you budget allows it.

[Stan]

Re: 70-200 f4 L or 70-300 f4-5.6?

With a crop body,this lens + 1.4TC gives you 448mm, which is Ok for most pictures of wild life.

only if your subject is quite large and near - for small birds very unlikely, even my 300 and converter is often not enough

Stan

[AndyMulhearn]

Re: 70-200 f4 L or 70-300 f4-5.6?

what Stan said. This Long-tailed tit was sit using a 400L with x1.4 tc making it a 560mm and equivalent to a 896mm lens. With an equivalent 448mm you'd be cropping like mad...


Long-tailed tit by andymulhearn, on Flickr

[the black fox]

Re: 70-200 f4 L or 70-300 f4-5.6?

got to agree totally with stan and andy ,i even find my 400mm limiting and am seriously thinking about one of the new 150-600 super-zooms .just really waiting for sigma to bring out the second version of theres ,then weigh up the options.
my plans for the 70-200 are to fit it to either the 70d or the eos-m in the summer coupled with extension tube/s and use it for close focus work i.e butterflies and large insects etc..keeping one of the other bodies loaded with a long lens for birds

[Nathaniel]

Re: 70-200 f4 L or 70-300 f4-5.6?

I should have qualified by saying that my combo would be OK for reasonably large subjects- all my South African pics were taken with the standard 70-300mm lens- but with smaller subjects like small birds, one would need a larger crop. I should however mention that the combo of 70-200mm +1.4TC (448mm on a crop body) can be carried all day without discomfort with one those Optek straps.