| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/08/2006 11:55:57 PM · #1 |
Thoughts and experiences.
Some say the IS is worth having over the "L" glass. I prefer sharpness over reach.
Of course, I could always get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS but that is way out of my budget...and will be for quite some time.
I just bought the 10-22mm so I am not going to buy anything soon. I just like to dream.
Message edited by author 2006-08-08 23:56:31. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 12:15:05 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by slickchik:
Thoughts and experiences.
Some say the IS is worth having over the "L" glass. I prefer sharpness over reach. |
Duh. Canon 70-200 f/4
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 12:17:36 AM · #3 |
The 70-200 f4. And a lens hood. Its an awsome lens and seriously, save for better glass. I got mine on ebay, granted that's rolling the dice, but mine has been amazing.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 12:43:41 AM · #4 |
But what do you want to shoot with it?
If you want to shoot people and maybe some landscape then the 70-200 but if you like birds and wildlife for sure the 70-300 IS |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 01:04:20 AM · #5 |
| 70-200 f/4 NO question. These 2 lenses are in different leagues. And the 70-200 f/4 is a BARGAIN compared to its f/2.8 brothers... |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 01:23:21 AM · #6 |
| Theres always a questions. If you'd be using the 70-300 alot in the 200-300 range then why would you cut yourself short just becasue the lens is 'better'. It's not better if its not giving you what you need. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 01:25:21 AM · #7 |
The 70-200 f/4L is in a class by itself as far as quality-for-price goes. It's simply an outstanding lens at a very affordable price. If you really need 300mm, then that's obviously a factor, but otherwise the 70-200 hands down.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 01:53:02 AM · #8 |
| No contest... 70-200mm 4L all the way... What you loose in reach you more than make up in Clarity, Sharpness and detail. Add a x1.4 TC later and you have a 280mm. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 02:00:56 AM · #9 |
| Had a 70-300. Got rid of it in favour of the 70-200 4L. You simply can not compare the two. Use a 1.4 adapter to get 280mm if you need it. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 02:22:32 AM · #10 |
Are you referring to the 70-300 IS f/4.0-5.6 USM lens? If so, I guess I'm in the minority here. I sold my 70-200 f/4 to buy this one, and haven't looked back. The IS lets me get images at a quality I never would have with the 70-200. I see no appreciable difference in quality between the two at comparable focal lengths, and the additional reach is very useful to me.
Check the lengthy discussions on dpreview.com. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 02:43:03 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
Are you referring to the 70-300 IS f/4.0-5.6 USM lens? If so, I guess I'm in the minority here. I sold my 70-200 f/4 to buy this one, and haven't looked back. The IS lets me get images at a quality I never would have with the 70-200. I see no appreciable difference in quality between the two at comparable focal lengths, and the additional reach is very useful to me.
Check the lengthy discussions on dpreview.com. |
the f/4.5-5.6 lens
The f/4-5.6 lens.
Two different beasts altogether.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 02:49:59 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
Are you referring to the 70-300 IS f/4.0-5.6 USM lens? If so, I guess I'm in the minority here. I sold my 70-200 f/4 to buy this one, and haven't looked back. The IS lets me get images at a quality I never would have with the 70-200. I see no appreciable difference in quality between the two at comparable focal lengths, and the additional reach is very useful to me.
Check the lengthy discussions on dpreview.com. |
the f/4.5-5.6 lens
The f/4-5.6 lens.
Two different beasts altogether.
R. |
Yes, but the first link is to the DO model - considerably more expensive than the second. I think the OP was actually referring to the second, which is virtually the same price as the 70-200.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 02:52:44 AM · #13 |
The only real issue here is how steady are your hands? If you can't keep them steady then yeah opt for the IS lens else go with the L glass and if you need the extra reach get an extender.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 09:46:08 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
Are you referring to the 70-300 IS f/4.0-5.6 USM lens? If so, I guess I'm in the minority here. I sold my 70-200 f/4 to buy this one, and haven't looked back. The IS lets me get images at a quality I never would have with the 70-200. I see no appreciable difference in quality between the two at comparable focal lengths, and the additional reach is very useful to me.
Check the lengthy discussions on dpreview.com. |
the f/4.5-5.6 lens
The f/4-5.6 lens.
Two different beasts altogether.
R. |
Yes, but the first link is to the DO model - considerably more expensive than the second. I think the OP was actually referring to the second, which is virtually the same price as the 70-200. |
Yeah, I meant the NON-DO model...I was talking about the 2 that are the same price basically.
Message edited by author 2006-08-09 09:46:48. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 09:49:04 AM · #15 |
The sharpness of the 70-200 F4L will blow you away.
Message edited by author 2006-08-09 11:36:40. |
|
|
|
09/17/2006 06:59:55 AM · #16 |
I keep thinking I have made up my mind, then I read something new, and I am in doubt again ... I am considering either
70-300 mm f4-5.6 IS
70-200 mm f/4L
70-200 mm f/4L IS (released Nov 2006)
I need them for travel, so it must be versatile.
70-200 is equivalent of 112-320 on a 1.6 crop. With my current P&S I have 38-456mm, and the 70-300 would give me 112-480. For the 70-300, I prefer the color, slightly smaller size and weight, as well as the span beyond 200 mm.
I compared the 70-300 DO and non-DO together with the 70-200 (non-IS), and did shots across the store, towards a small bar code far away. Using the same CF card, I was interested in comparing how 200mm L glass compares to 300 mm non-L glass, and the 300mm was definately sharper.
So I am still in doubt which one to get. Waiting for the 70-200 IS means double the price of the other two lenses, but I am sooo tempted, but keep telling myself I have more use of the 70-300 lens. It is like feelings say 70-200, realistic consideration says 70-300 ... I wish I had them both for a few days, to compare for my practical needs.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2006 07:39:36 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by B74A:
...I compared the 70-300 DO and non-DO together with the 70-200 (non-IS), and did shots across the store, towards a small bar code far away. Using the same CF card, I was interested in comparing how 200mm L glass compares to 300 mm non-L glass, and the 300mm was definately sharper.... |
The best way to compare lenses is to shoot with them on a tripod. The reason you found the 300mm to be sharper is most likely due to the IS in a low light situation. Shot using a tripod and remote release the 70-200 f/4 will blow the 70-300 away. |
|
|
|
09/17/2006 07:45:54 AM · #18 |
I don't have the 70-200L F4. I'll probably never buy it. That said, I do have the 100-400L IS and the 70-300 IS. What I considered before buying each:
the 100-400L gets me to 640 with IS at 5.6. I don't loose quality using an extender. Everyone seems to suggest that adding an extender causes no loss of quality. Its just not true.
When thinking about purchasing something for street work I considered the 70-200 f4, 70-300 IS, 70-300 IS DO. The 70-200 is bulky and noticible. It's slow and short. But it is ultra-sharp. I didn't want the bulky and noticible part - was more important than the sharp part for what I was going to use it. The DO, slightly smaller than the non-DO, and twice the price, didn't give me better image quality, when I tested it, than the non-DO. The 70-300 IS allows me to slow down the shutter speed if needed and still hand hold. I couldn't get the same quality out of the 70-200 at the same shutterspeed. I lost the sharpness of the lens to camera shake. So it was a no brainer. For me, and what I shoot, the 70-300 IS was a better choice.
In the future, I will probably purchase the 70-200L 2.8 IS. But I can't afford it right now. The 70-300 IS allows me the same range until I can.
What is most important is getting the lens that works best for you. Its easier and cheaper to buy off the internet but, without actually holding and using the lenses, you may not get what you need. L lenses sound great but really don't help you if they stay in your bag.
Next on my purchase list: Tokina 10-17 fisheye and a crapload of filters. The 70-200L 2.8 will wait until next year. |
|
|
|
09/17/2006 07:59:32 AM · #19 |
I'm with dahkota on this one. I do have the 70-200 L lens but am going to buy the 70-300 IS. In my case, I do suffer from camera shake. The 70-200 L is wonderful if you're shooting in strong light, no question, and the same is true if you use it with a tripod. But I like to walk around with my camera and rarely carry a tripod (though I suppose a monopod would work). I got the 24-105 L IS lens as my "really really good lens" and I absolutely LOVE the IS - it works very well for me.
Should/would I wait for the 70-200 L IS? Nah. For what I do (it's a hobby, not a business), I think the lesser expensive lens with the longer reach is more of what I need. |
|
|
|
09/17/2006 11:44:40 AM · #20 |
|
|
|
09/17/2006 11:55:52 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
the 100-400L gets me to 640 with IS at 5.6. I don't loose quality using an extender. Everyone seems to suggest that adding an extender causes no loss of quality. Its just not true.
|
I used a 1.4 TC on a 70-200 f/4 and could discern no difference between that and the lens used on its own. A 2x, however, makes a difference that just jumps out at you.
I had a go at the 70-300 last week and it seems to focus a lot slower than the 70-200 lenses do. That may well be a factor, depending on what it is that you are shooting.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2006 12:07:49 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
You just get this lens. |
or drool :-)
|
|
|
|
09/17/2006 12:12:07 PM · #23 |
Well, I bought the 70-200L f/4 and it is amazing...NO REGRETS here!
I still have my eye on the 70-200L f/2.8 IS but I can't spend $1700 on one lens...
I just found out that I have connections...I know someone who can get the Canon employee discount so I am waiting to find out just how good the discount it and then maybe I'll have to buy it.
I doubt the discount is that good though...hopefully it is half price!! |
|
|
|
09/17/2006 12:23:44 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by slickchik:
Well, I bought the 70-200L f/4 and it is amazing...NO REGRETS here!
I still have my eye on the 70-200L f/2.8 IS but I can't spend $1700 on one lens...
I just found out that I have connections...I know someone who can get the Canon employee discount so I am waiting to find out just how good the discount it and then maybe I'll have to buy it.
I doubt the discount is that good though...hopefully it is half price!! |
If you've got a connection, see how much you can get the 70-200 f/4 IS for. In case you are unaware, this is a newly-announced lens, probably available in November. List price is $1250. Notice that they are advertising an improved IS system, with 4 stop (!) capability. |
|
|
|
09/17/2006 02:30:31 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
... When thinking about purchasing something for street work I considered the 70-200 f4, 70-300 IS, 70-300 IS DO. The 70-200 is bulky and noticible. It's slow and short. But it is ultra-sharp. I didn't want the bulky and noticible part - was more important than the sharp part for what I was going to use it. The DO, slightly smaller than the non-DO, and twice the price, didn't give me better image quality, when I tested it, than the non-DO. The 70-300 IS allows me to slow down the shutter speed if needed and still hand hold. I couldn't get the same quality out of the 70-200 at the same shutterspeed. I lost the sharpness of the lens to camera shake. So it was a no brainer. For me, and what I shoot, the 70-300 IS was a better choice.
In the future, I will probably purchase the 70-200L 2.8 IS. But I can't afford it right now. The 70-300 IS allows me the same range until I can.
|
This is juuuust how I feel as well. But, try to put the new 70-200 F/4L IS into your equation. Should be released November 2006, almost the same weight as the non-IS version, but ... the price is ... .like double up! I think suggested retail is in the order of USD 1250, but we can hope that street price will be somewhat lower than that.
That will be interesting, I am looking forward to a handheld shootout between that new lens and the 70-300 IS (non-DO). Let the 70-300 use 300mm and try and beat the 70-200, if it can, same object and distance, same crop, which is better then? Will the allegedly 4-stop IS on the L lens and the better glass beat the longer non-L lens?
Holding my breath ...
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/11/2026 03:03:52 PM EST.
