DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Which "L" to choose..........?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/07/2005 09:18:12 PM · #1
First opinions and then a question:
I would like to "invest" in a first Canon L lens and have been comparing these 2 lenses:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM
//www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&thecat=27
or
upsize to the Canon EF 300mm f/4 IS USM
//www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=39&sort=7&thecat=2

I know the obvious (one's an IS lens and 100mm larger and the other is not); I really want to have opinions from those who own/owned one or both of these lenses. Also, if there's another one that blows these 2 away (for about the same $$$$), please tell me.

Now the question: If my Canon 20D has a multiplication factor of 1.6, then the 70-200mm becomes 112-320mm and the 300mm becomes 480mm. If I purchase the Canon 1.4x extender, what will be the final mm for both of these lenses?

Thanks!
 01/07/2005 09:26:20 PM · #2
448 & 672.
I have the 70-200 f4 and love it, I use it throughout its range but if you keep at the top end then maybe the 300 would be better, what are you wanting to shoot?
 01/07/2005 09:26:24 PM · #3
for 70-200 @ 200:
200*1.6*1.4=448mm in 35mm equivalent FoV

For 300mm prime:
300*1.6*1.4=672mm in 35mm equivalent FoV

Edit: FWIW, I think both the 70-200/4 and the 300/4 will handle the 1.4x converter pretty well, but the 300/4 will very likely be sharper with the converter, and longer to boot. At 672mm effective with a max aperture of f/5.6, you'll really like IS, since you should be able to shoot hand-held at 1/250s

Message edited by author 2005-01-07 21:29:09.
 01/07/2005 09:27:15 PM · #4
Personally I'd go for the 70-200mm as it's more useful for most things than the 300mm. But then again, if wildlife or sth like that is what you're interested in, go for the 300mm.

With 1.4 extender it's simply f*1.4*1.6 or f*2.24 if you think of the camera and extender as one. (f=focal lenght)

Cheers,
Steinar Hugi
 01/07/2005 09:28:27 PM · #5
Right, there were no replys when I started writing...
;-)
 01/07/2005 09:31:45 PM · #6
I have th 70-200 L f4 lense and its the best thing in the world except for the F2. Im saving for the f2 version. You may want to think about spending the extra money for the F2 and then you could buy a 1.4 extender later when you have the money. Thats what I'm going to do. You wont be disapointed with 70-200. Kevin
 01/07/2005 09:33:04 PM · #7
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
what are you wanting to shoot?


Wildlife and most anything outside the house (emulate photogs Peterson, Zuckerman or Miotke). Possibly sporting events; I've got 3 pro teams in our area. Maybe even aerial photography; my wife is a pilot.
 01/07/2005 10:16:20 PM · #8
Originally posted by Sailingduck:
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
what are you wanting to shoot?


Wildlife and most anything outside the house (emulate photogs Peterson, Zuckerman or Miotke). Possibly sporting events; I've got 3 pro teams in our area. Maybe even aerial photography; my wife is a pilot.


I would recommend the 300mm f/4L IS then. Here's an example of a shot with the 300mm f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter. You can't really see the quality on that web photo, but I printed a 20x30 of this shot, one word: AMAZING!


01/07/2005 10:28:03 PM · #9
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by Sailingduck:
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
what are you wanting to shoot?


Wildlife and most anything outside the house (emulate photogs Peterson, Zuckerman or Miotke). Possibly sporting events; I've got 3 pro teams in our area. Maybe even aerial photography; my wife is a pilot.


I would recommend the 300mm f/4L IS then. Here's an example of a shot with the 300mm f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter. You can't really see the quality on that web photo, but I printed a 20x30 of this shot, one word: AMAZING!



Not to mention that you're shooting with a $4500 (freaking incredible) camera!
Seriously, do you choose the zoom telephoto or a prime lens as your first really long lens. I think that I might have a little more versatility with the zoom tele as a walk around lens rather than a fixed prime lens.

Please comment; I'm wanting to hear opinions either way from the folks who are in the trenches. Thanks.
 01/07/2005 10:34:56 PM · #10
I have a 1.4 and 2.0 extender that I have have used once each. I would be willing to sell both of these. They are both still under warranty. I will never use them.

Message edited by author 2005-01-07 22:35:17.
 01/07/2005 10:36:39 PM · #11
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I have a 1.4 and 2.0 extender that I have have used once each. I would be willing to sell both of these. They are both still under warranty. I will never use them.


Can I ask why you bought both and will never use them?
 01/07/2005 10:37:38 PM · #12
The 70-200 lens, from what I have seen, including a friend who has one, is a stunning lens. I don't knowanything about the 300mm lens though, which I am sure is also excellent.

I take a lot of wildlife photos and wanted the extra reach, hence did not go for the 70-200. I went for:

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (Image Stabilizer) USM Autofocus Lens

//www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=162616&is=USA

I think the 70-200 has the edge over this lens at 200mm and below, however, this lens is certainly better at the higher zooms than the 70-200 with a teleconverter.

01/07/2005 10:44:07 PM · #13
Sailingduck,

I recently decided between these two options, having similar photographic interests as yours, and went with the 300mm prime, for the very reasons mentioned by kirbic: "the 300/4 will very likely be sharper with the converter, and longer to boot. At 672mm effective with a max aperture of f/5.6, you'll really like IS".

Don't get me wrong, I still dream of getting the 70-200 as well. (That lens would be the perfect complement to the 24-70/2.8 and the 300/4 that I bought initially... almost makes me drool.) I'm sure that you'll be pleased with either, but for wildlife, especially birds, I don't think there is any such thing as too much reach. BTW, the autofocus is incredibly quick . Good luck whichever you choose.

01/07/2005 10:55:04 PM · #14
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
Can I ask why you bought both and will never use them?


I have a Canon 600/4 and a 1Ds. If I need to go bigger on a shot I just take the picture with the lens I have attached and crop. Changeing lenses on a lot on the 1Ds is not a good idea anyway. The sensor filter is like a dust magnet.
 01/07/2005 11:08:18 PM · #15
Originally posted by Sailingduck:
Seriously, do you choose the zoom telephoto or a prime lens as your first really long lens. I think that I might have a little more versatility with the zoom tele as a walk around lens rather than a fixed prime lens.

Please comment; I'm wanting to hear opinions either way from the folks who are in the trenches. Thanks.


For sports and wildlife you'll find that your lens is never long enough, I've never had to zoom in or out in these situations, the 300 with the 1.4x teleconverter was on all the time. If I'm in a situation where I'd need zooming the 70-200 is the one I use +/- the 1.4x teleconverter

Message edited by author 2005-01-07 23:08:58.
 01/08/2005 01:54:29 AM · #16
I'm a proponent of buying the absolute best glass you can get if you have a specific task you're looking for. You mentioned two types of photography that depend on glass with some legs (pro sports and wildlife). Given what you want to shoot, were I making the decision I'd go for the 300mm.

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS version and I love it. I use it to shoot mainly portraits but I have taken it to baseball fields from little league up through high school and it just doesn't have the kind of distance to really fill the frame with the subject on any field I've been to so I tossed on the 2.0x t/c. At the high school level that still wasn't enough for me to reach across the field and put the action of a play at first base into the frame very well (not to mention that the 2.0 degrades the image past what I like with this lens). You can see some of the photos here or closeups here or little league here.

I love the 70-200 and I suggest that if you're considering purchasing one and you have the $1,000 to drop on the EF 300 L f/4 you might want to consider the 70-200 f/2.8 L (non-IS). Its another $100 but I think its worth it.

Kev
 01/08/2005 06:18:27 AM · #17
I have both and the 300mm f4 L IS blows the pants off the 70-200mm f4 L. The prime just gives you so much more sharp detail than the zoom. It almost never never leaves my camera.

Here is an example. I shot this off my deck. I hardly had to sharpen this one. The focus is ok on this shot, although i notice now that the lens picked up on the bird's wing instead of it's eye. The larger file is also much better than this small one.


01/08/2005 05:07:19 PM · #18
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I have a 1.4 and 2.0 extender that I have have used once each. I would be willing to sell both of these. They are both still under warranty. I will never use them.


What price are you asking for each of these?

Thanks!
Colette
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 05:07:29 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 05:07:29 PM EDT.