70-300 vs 70-200 stupid newbie question.

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

08/27/2005 11:33:48 AM · #1

OK, stupid newbie question.

I understand that lenses are typically fairly soft as they approach the final 20-25% of their telephoto range.

Will the (new) 70-300mm f/4-5.6 be likely to be sharper at 200mm than the 70-200mm F/4L or the 70-200mm F2.8L?

How good is Non "L" glass?

Of course, there is no price listed yet for the new 70-300, so I have as yet no idea where it fits in price-wise with the other lenses. I'd personally rather shoot the non IS F2.8L over the IS 4-5.6, but it's actually all imaginary at this point anyhow :)

Additionally, someone once told me that a 1.4x teleconverter is useable on the 70-200, but not on the 70-300's. Could someone please clarify this issue for me?

Thank you!

nsbca7

08/27/2005 11:40:06 AM · #2

Originally posted by eschelar:

Probably not.

Originally posted by eschelar:

How good is Non "L" glass?

Much of it is good. I don't know how good a wide ranging variable aperture zoom can be though.

[/quote]

08/27/2005 11:44:16 AM · #3

Both 70-200 lenses will be MUCH sharper than a non-L 70-300 at full telephoto. L glass is typically excellent at the extremes where other lenses get soft. The 70-200 f/4L is one of the best bargains around. There are some excellent non-L lenses out there (particularly primes), but they often compromise on focusing speed and build quality (most L glass is sealed against dust and moisture).

The 1.4X TC only works with specific lenses that have space for the converter behind the rear element. The 70-300mm isn't one of them.

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

08/27/2005 11:49:03 AM · #4

...or you have to mount an extension tube between the lens and the teleconverter.

08/27/2005 11:50:14 AM · #5

Thanks for the quick reply nsbca7.

The reason I asked is primarily because I am a still pretty dumb when it comes to things like MTF charts. I noticed that the MTF chart for the 70-300 is decent, but not as good as the 70-200. But there were several lines, and I haven't read up on what they meant yet.

Hope someone who knows more about those charts than I do can give a clear and simple answer on this one. MTF chart comparisons are on canon's main webpage.

Regarding your comment on the wide ranging variable aperture zoom, I was actually thinking that this was a good reason to go for the 70-300. There seems to be a very wide range of 70-300mm lenses from various manufacturers and the feedback is pretty good on them. I had assumed that this was because the zoom range isn't very wide (4x) compared to a lot of 10x, catch-all lenses. I am trying to do research because so many people feel that it is a good idea to grab a couple of cheaper lenses and one really good lens when you go DSLR. I want to know where to focus my cash... I can't see that there would be that much difference in a zoom lens going from 4x (70-300) to 3x (70-200).

Much of the difference would likely lie in the inferior glass.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/27/2005 11:54:12 AM · #6

Great info so far and fast replies from all of you. thanks.

Methos. Exciting idea about the extension tube. I will be reading up on their use as soon as I can find a good place to read about it.

Scalvert. I understand that Lenses are soft at telephoto, so this is why I want to ask this question. I don't want to compare both lenses at full telephoto. I want to compare the L at full telephoto with the non-L only 3/4 through it's zoom range.

My thought is that if it can cover the 150-250mm range quite well, I would be a very nice choice for those that want a bit more length. Particularly if it is cheaper than the 70-200f4L.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

08/27/2005 11:56:39 AM · #7

If you want great image quility, go with the 70-200 f/4L. As scalvert posted, it's one of the best telezooms out there, and is very reasonably priced. You can combine that with the 1.4x converter and still get great performance, and though your maximum aperture will be f/5.6 you will still be able to autofocus.

nsbca7

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

08/27/2005 11:59:00 AM · #8

Originally posted by eschelar:

Regarding your comment on the wide ranging variable aperture zoom, I was actually thinking that this was a good reason to go for the 70-300. There seems to be a very wide range of 70-300mm lenses from various manufacturers and the feedback is pretty good on them. I had assumed that this was because the zoom range isn't very wide (4x) compared to a lot of 10x, catch-all lenses. I am trying to do research because so many people feel that it is a good idea to grab a couple of cheaper lenses and one really good lens when you go DSLR. I want to know where to focus my cash... I can't see that there would be that much difference in a zoom lens going from 4x (70-300) to 3x (70-200).

Much of the difference would likely lie in the inferior glass.

Wide ranging zoom lenses tend to hunt more and focus slower then lenses with a shorter zoom range or primes.

The variable aperture not only cuts more light at the longer end of the zoom but also changes the focus as it zooms. A constant aperture zoom will not.

What it comes down to is do you want a Swiss Army knife or a single blade razor sharp Case? The do everything lens is a trade-off.

Message edited by author 2005-08-27 12:00:04.

08/27/2005 12:11:43 PM · #9

Taken handheld with the 70-200 f/4L and 1.4x teleconverter at full telephoto. Sharp enough?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/27/2005 12:15:14 PM · #10

Originally posted by eschelar:

I want to compare the L at full telephoto with the non-L only 3/4 through it's zoom range.

My guess is that the 70-200 f/4L would be noticeably sharper at every point in its range than the 70-300, but I don't know that for a fact, and the 70-300 DOES have the advantage of IS for low light.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/27/2005 12:18:56 PM · #11

This constant aperture holding its focus is a REAL plus in a zoom lens. My Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and my Canon 70-200 f/4L are both constant aperture lenses and a joy to use. While I was waiitng for the Tamron they loaned me a Canon 28-75 f/4 - 5.6 IS to use, and while it was a nice lens it drove me crazy with the focus shift as I made small zoom changes for cropping purposes. Unfortunately the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5 - 4.5 is NOT fixed-aperture, but at that wide range the focus shifts are a lot less troubling to work with; in the telephoto range the image changes size noticeably as you fine-tune the focus after zooming.

R.

strangeghost

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/27/2005 12:42:23 PM · #12

The Canon 70-200 f/4 is an excellent lens and outstanding considering the cost. Amazon has it now for $583 and I'm sure you could do even better with a little google searching.

We've just decided to buy a second one because when Andrea and I go shooting together, she always wants to use mine. We debated for awhile going with one of the Tamron superzooms (like this one) but in the end, decided to go for the Canon because it's a proven performer.

I'll probably end up selling mine in a year or so to fund an upgrade to the f/2.8.

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

08/27/2005 01:27:52 PM · #13

Originally posted by strangeghost:

We've just decided to buy a second one because when Andrea and I go shooting together, she always wants to use mine.

I'll probably end up selling mine in a year or so to fund an upgrade to the f/2.8.

Hmmm - I see an opportunity here to speed up the timetable for an upgrade! LOL.

strangeghost

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/27/2005 01:34:27 PM · #14

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

Hmmm - I see an opportunity here to speed up the timetable for an upgrade! LOL.

That transparent??

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

08/27/2005 03:24:16 PM · #15

Originally posted by scalvert:

..... most L glass is sealed against dust and moisture .....

Does anyone know of a reference source that states definitively which L lenses are sealed?

And are any of the third party lenses (Sigma, Tamron or Tokina) "sealed"?

08/27/2005 10:49:17 PM · #16

I believe canon's website will say which lenses are sealed.

Thank you all for your comments on the 20-700.

I was a little concerned about the F4 instead of the f2.8. I had NOT heard before about the focus shift. This drives me absolutely nuts already, particularly as the lens on my camera doesn't focus all that well at full telephoto anyhow. To be able to focus on something, then zoom right into it without adjusting focus sounds rather juicy!

It looks like my lens choices is becoming more of a flow chart though due to cost :) Still entertaining canon as my system.

Choice 1:

Kit lens (why not, 18-55 ain't bad... might try to find the Japanese cam usm one just for a lark - this is mostly to cover the 18-28mm wide angle gap) $100
Canon 50mm 1.8 $70
Tamron 28-75 F2.8 $370
Sigma 70-300 $130 (or tamron, don't know yet)
Canon 100mm 2.8 macro $450 total: 1120

Six months later
70-200 f2.8L (nonIS) $1100
1.4x TC $300 grand total: 2520

Choice 2
Kit lens $100
70-200 f2.8L (nonIS) $1100
1.4x TC $300
Canon 50mm 1.8 $70 (can't not do this) total $1570

Four months later:
Canon 100mm f2.8Macro $450
Tamron 28-75 $370 grand total $2390

Choice 3:
no Kit lens
Canon 50mm 1.8 $70
Tamron 28-300XR Macro F2.8-5.6 $290 (would replace kit lens, so 190 effectively, would use the reversed 50 for macro) Total: $360

Two months later:
Canon 70-200F2.8L (nonIS) $1100
1.4x TC $300 Grand Total: $1760

HRM. Money is an issue for me.

Anyone want to comment on which choice you think is better? Remember that choice one will be purchased simultaneously with a body, likely to be the 20D.

I'm in no hurry, I have a lot to learn yet with my current camera. I am making movements to purchase in Feb/March 2006, around the time of the expected release of 20d's replacement. At that time, I will be in a better decision to decide which body to get.

Message edited by author 2005-08-27 23:05:05.

Prof_Fate

08/27/2005 11:53:23 PM · #17

Consider:

The Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC. $440 or so, look around. Better than the kit lens BY FAR, fast lens, constant aperture. Skip the 28-75 - it is good on a full frame sensor, but on a 1.6x crop the 18-50 is the same range. Since you are NOT getting a $100 nd $370 lense(s) you come out ahead.

On the Sigma 70-300, get the APO DG ONLY. It is about $200, and it FAR surpasses the $130 non-APO version. It has a nice macro, but not 1:1 if you need that, then the get 100mm macro lens.

The Canon 70-200 4L OR the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG HSM. When using a 2.8 ap lens, canon 20D and above cameras go into a more accurate focus mode. The Sigma is more than the canon 4L, but cheaper than the canon 2.8.

the 50 1.8, yes.

On the TC issues...you cannot use AF if the max ap is 5.6 or more. A 1.4x adds 1 stop, a 2x TC 2 stops. So a 1.4 works on a f4 lens, the 2.0 on a 2.8 lens. another reason to go for a 2.8 lens. Regardless, any TC will slow the focusing speed. This info is per canon's own literature.

Some of my advice, or anyone's advice, is based on our own research or personal experience/preferences.

I have not gotten a 1:1 macro. I am happy with the sigam 70-300's macro mode. I also have extension tubes. I am getting into weddings and a 70-200 4L is probably next on my list...although an 18-200 is awfully tempting at times. Perhaps my perfect lens will arrive just as my pocket book fills...

Ask yourself: what kind of shooting do you do? What range is needed for that?
If you buy a cheaper lens now and use it for a year or 2 and sell it for even 1/2 (a $200 lens, sell for $100) you got a good deal of use for that $100! Or you have a backup, or a lens to use when you travel or go the beach or other nasty environment you don't want to risk the good stuff in.

The 'zoom right in and not adjust focus' has a specific name. I have not noticed any issues with either of my Sigma zooms. What folks might be referring to is as you zoom in with a cariable ap lens,the ap changes (or can change) and that can effect exposure. shutter speed, etc. I had this issue in low light with my tamron 28-80 3.5-5.6. I have no issues with my 70-300 4.0-5.6 as i am rarely trying to shoot a 4.0. The wider lens I used in doors, where low light and max ap were factors.

08/28/2005 12:39:50 AM · #18

This would be my starter list:

Now
Canon 50mm 1.8 $70
Tamron 28-75 F2.8 $370
Canon 70-200 f/4 $570

Later (as needed)
Tokina 12-24 f/4L $499
Canon 1.4X TC
Kenko 25mm Extension tube

The new Canon EF 24 - 105 mm F4L IS looks very interesting, but it's $1250

Message edited by author 2005-08-28 00:40:10.