User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  2
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: Which lens? 70-200 or 70-300 (1/3rd cheaper!)

  1. #1
    Member Tanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Which lens? 70-200 or 70-300 (1/3rd cheaper!)

    I am (was!?) thinking of getting the 70-200 f4 IS lens but I can get the Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM lens for 1/3rd the price of the 70-200! I know it may be coming down in price since Canon said they are doing a L version of this lens soon to be released.

    Which one would you choose? I have heard such great stuff about the 70-200 plus is weather sealed and the 70-300 sounds a bit harder to use to get the pics you want - but then it has the extra length....

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    22 Sep 2008
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    83
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think I'd probably go the 70-200, just because of the f/4 throughout the range. I know I am not a Canon user, so not aware of the particular strengths and weaknesses of each of these. Excellent results can be achieved with a 70-300, IMO (I have an el cheapo Tamron 70-300 and it serves very very well).

    Questions to ask yourself... are you inclined to go out in crap weather? Spend a lot of time at the beach? Generally use your camera in dusty conditions? If not, then maybe the weather sealing isn't a huge selling point...

    Another alternative might be to get the el cheapo Tamron for yourself (they make it with a Canon mount). You might find you don't need to have 300mm.
    Blog : PPG : Flickr
    PENTAX K-5 + various lenses; Olympus XZ-1; Fujifilm X100; Ricoh GRD3

  3. #3
    Member twister's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Jul 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    54
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    OP: If you're shooting a crop body, 300mm is a VERY long length for everyday use...

    The 70-200 f/4L IS will eat the 70-300 alive for IQ...it has better IS, heaps better build, focuses much faster, and doesnt extend during zooming...

    The 70-300 is reasonable up to 200mm, but anything beyond 220-230mm is not exactly blade-sharp...

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    what do you take photos of might help
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Nov 2008
    Location
    Booval, Qld (near Ipswich)
    Posts
    2,018
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Let me just ask, what's the use in having extra reach if the shot isn't going to be of the same high quality you'd get from other lens?

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    04 Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    347
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have both lenses and basically the 70-300 is an OK lens that when stopped down to about F11! produces great images. The 70-200 F4 produces fantastic images wide open. You can also put a 1.4x teleconvertor on the 70-200 to get extra reach without a noticeable drop off in quality.
    Don't even bother with the 70-300, go for the 70-200.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    02 Sep 2010
    Location
    near Toowoomba
    Posts
    344
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hi Tanne
    I'm only a beginer but i have the 70-300 tamron and a 24-105L
    i barely use the 70-300 because the 24-105 is faster to focus and is just a pleasure to use.
    i have seen many post on the 70-200 and the extender added 200x1.4 = 280mm almost the same as a 300 with reportedly very good results.
    I will probably go this way when i can afford it but for now i am looking at the 100 macro and a 10-22
    I will still have the cheap 70-300 when i need it - basicly i think there are more important considerations than focal length - quality of image and fast,acurate focusing

    just where i am at the moment
    Cheers

  8. #8
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Tanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thank you everyone! Will go with the 70-200 (if that is the option I take if you saw my other thread!) you just all confirmed it for me! lol I wanted to take it to the beach etc so if I get it I wont be as worried with the 70-300. I just take general pictures Kiwi - learning! Thanks Allann that is very true!

    thanks so much you have all really been a great help!

    ETA - Thanks Allan Ryan as well!

  9. #9
    Member Tonym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Aug 2010
    Location
    Lower Hunter Valley
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a 70-200 and found it a bit short for birds and wildlife so I tend to use my el cheapo Canon kit lens 70-300 for that.The 70-300 tends to hunt a bit when focusing though. The IQ is not as good as the 200 but I am happy with it none the less. I am in the process of getting another lens in either 100-400 or 50-500 but havn't decieded which yet but I would say lens selection probably depends a lot on what you shoot. Good luck with your choice.
    Last edited by Tonym; 10-09-2010 at 10:17pm.

  10. #10
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Tanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks TonyM! If I had the 300mm I probably would do wildlife shooting to but it can wait! for now or at least a little while! lol

  11. #11
    Member David's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 2009
    Location
    westbury
    Posts
    1,255
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tanne View Post
    Thanks TonyM! If I had the 300mm I probably would do wildlife shooting to but it can wait! for now or at least a little while! lol
    No point in having a 300mm focal length if it is crap beyond 200-220mm in IQ: don't go there Quality images require quality lenses at the end of the day in most cases.
    Comments and CC welcome..

    Gear: Canon 6D & 1Ds Cameras l Canon EF 17-40mm F 4.0 L USM l Canon EF 24-105mm F4.0 L IS USM l Canon EF 70 - 200 F4.0 L USM Lenses I Manfrotto Tripods I Adobe Photoshop CS6 l Lightroom 3.0 I Lee Filters



    "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust 1871 - 1922

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Nov 2008
    Location
    Booval, Qld (near Ipswich)
    Posts
    2,018
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    for birds 300 is usually not enough. you'll want at least a 400. the 100-400 is a good lens and very capable, as is the 400/5.6. but working with these takes a lot of practice to get great shots.

  13. #13
    Ausphotography Addict Richard Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Jan 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    5,196
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I totally disagree with the comments that the 70-300 is no good over 200mm. I've just been using mine for a couple of weeks whilst my main birding lens (100-400) is in for repair and it performed quite admirably, including at 300mm. As Allan's just mentioned though, it's a little short for birding work generally, but for other wildlife images it's a great little lens and can be used for birding if you're patient.

    Construction wise it's quite solid, the IS on it is great (better than my older 100-400), I find I can hand hold down to about 1/40s at 300mm fairly easily. It's just a little slower to auto-focus I find. The 70-200 would hold the edge IQ wise, but I don't think the 70-300 would disappoint.

    A few samples taken recently... and all at a crap 300mm.

    Canon 40D, ISO 400, f/10, 1/400s, 300mm (full frame)
    http://richardhallphotography.com/Au...0_5uQa6-X3.jpg

    Canon 40D, ISO 500, f/9, 1/1000s, 300mm (60% of frame)
    http://richardhallphotography.com/Au...8_EnwP9-X3.jpg

    Canon 40D, ISO 500, f/9, 1/1250s, 300mm (about 25% of frame!)
    http://richardhall.smugmug.com/photo...3_MKYhx-X3.jpg

    Canon 40D, ISO 800, f/8, 1/250s, 300mm, (50% of frame)
    http://richardhallphotography.com/Au...7_3CSCN-X3.jpg
    Last edited by Richard Hall; 11-09-2010 at 1:29am.
    www.richardhallphotography.com



    Atheism is Myth-understood

  14. #14
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Tanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks Allann and David

    Richard those pictures are lovely!!! I am still going to go with the 200 maybe though more so because of the build/weather sealing for areas I am going to but can I ask when focusing would you miss out on some shots of people/kids when they are moving (ie a kid smiling for a second when on a swing) due to the focus or would it be just as slow as some of the compact camera focusing times? or is it worse?

  15. #15
    Ausphotography Site Sponsor/Advertiser OzzieTraveller's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Oct 2009
    Location
    Forster- Tuncurry, eastern Australia
    Posts
    1,600
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    G'day all

    I have followed this thread with interest - with Kiwi's comment [to the OP] in mind all along "what do you take photos of might help" ... something I have not seen an answer to - not to worry tho
    And - Brian has hit the nail on the head with a factual response to the comment regarding images when using a lens longer than 200mm.

    I love long lens work - much of my stuff is using the lens wracked out to 600mm
    I love the perspective-shortening effects of a landscape shot with a long lens; I love isolating a bird, flower, 'whatever' that you can only get from a long lens
    For me, a fair amount of everything over 250mm is tripod based - I have met too many people/images that are just that tad unsharp due to camera shake from hand-holding a 300-400mm lens thinking that it'll be okay, mate.

    So - for the OP - Tanner...
    What sort of images do you wish to take? How much of your photo work will be in the 200-300 range? How much greater is the cost of the -200 + a tc1.4 than this -300 lens, OR an upmarket "L" series lens?

    just some 'small' issues for you to contemplate before putting your money down ...
    Regards, Phil
    Of all the stuff in a busy photographers kitbag, the ability to see photographically is the most important
    google me at Travelling School of Photography
    images.: flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/

  16. #16
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Tanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by OzzieTraveller View Post

    So - for the OP - Tanner...
    What sort of images do you wish to take? How much of your photo work will be in the 200-300 range?

    just some 'small' issues for you to contemplate before putting your money down ...
    Regards, Phil
    Im just learning! I use to just take pictures of pets/family - then at family events. Friends and family have asked me to take photos of their kids so have done that a few times. I live in semi acerage so when my powershot was working would take photos of wildlife. Now only if I can sneak up with my 17-55mm which is not often! lol Have done some landscape, did a couple days at the Brisbane Ekka shooting people, rides, animals etc. Going on holidays soon to the pacific and ideally would like to take photos of people and landscapes. Have done some flower shooting to which I love and the Toowoomba flower show is coming up soon!

    Re costs the -300 is much much cheaper! 1/3rd the price which would allow me to get extra memory cards etc that I need.
    Last edited by Tanne; 11-09-2010 at 7:23am.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Jul 2010
    Location
    South
    Posts
    254
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you can stretch your budget out a bit, have a look at either the Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 lenses. They're not entirely massive (generally speaking) and are quite cheap at around $1500 for a pretty massive focal length. They're not super sharp at the longer end, as you'd expect for this price range but if you want to do this sort of work it's a cost effect solution. I've sold a few through the shop and my customers love them - they're being used for birds and whale watching mostly. One guy uses it on his Olympus, giving an equiv. FOV of a 100-1000mm lens
    Canon stuff 5Dmk1 w/ 24-70 f2.8L, Canon 5Dmk1 w/70-200f2.8L, 100mm f2.8 macro, 50mm f1.4, 580exII
    Alienbees B800, Lumopro 160, Manfrotto 155XPROB w/ 498RC2, Lowepro ProRunner X450AW
    Phew!

  18. #18
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Tanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ZedEx View Post
    If you can stretch your budget out a bit, have a look at either the Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 lenses. They're not entirely massive (generally speaking) and are quite cheap at around $1500 for a pretty massive focal length. They're not super sharp at the longer end, as you'd expect for this price range but if you want to do this sort of work it's a cost effect solution. I've sold a few through the shop and my customers love them - they're being used for birds and whale watching mostly. One guy uses it on his Olympus, giving an equiv. FOV of a 100-1000mm lens
    Thanks ZedEx!! I will check the lens out!

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    03 Apr 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've recently purchased the 70-200L 2.8 IS USM and it really is fantastic. However it's also NOT cheap. It was a tough decision as to go for this one or the 300 for that extra zoom. But I wasn't keen on the zoom type on the 300. So opted for the 200/2.8 which is great for low light. I've got a 1.4 extender but not had much of a chance to use that yet to see what it does to the sharpness.
    Whichever way you go I always think there is another lens out there that you think you should have bought!! Well, I do anyway.
    Adventure Before Dementure

  20. #20
    Member brewster's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Sep 2010
    Location
    Oakleigh
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Tanne, I am in a similar position to you in trying to choose between a 200 or a 300 mm zoom lens. I was deciding between the 70-200 f4 L IS against the 70-300 DO IS. I wanted the image quality of the L lens, with the zoom range of the 300mm. As I couldn't have both, I was going to go with the 200mm L.
    However, Canon has just announced a new 70-300 L lens around 2 weeks ago, although pricing has not yet been released. I think that this lens will give the best of both worlds, while not being as large or expensive as the 100-400 L. This is the lens that I will go for, and I suggest you wait and see what the pricing is before buying anything. I expect the pricing will be between the 70-200 f4 L and the 100-400 L.
    I use a Canon 7D, and currently have an older 100-300mm lens, which has been disappointing as far as IQ goes at extreme zoom, so I don't use it with the 7D. As the quality of camera sensors is only going to go up, a cheaper lens will become a limiting factor in your photography in the future.
    Regards, Bruce

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •