Which lens? 70-200 or 70-300 (1/3rd cheaper!) [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

Tanne

10-09-2010, 1:21pm

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....

kyteflyer

10-09-2010, 2:27pm

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.

twister

10-09-2010, 2:50pm

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...

kiwi

10-09-2010, 2:51pm

what do you take photos of might help

Allann

10-09-2010, 3:01pm

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?

Old Skool

10-09-2010, 3:36pm

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.

Allan Ryan

10-09-2010, 5:01pm

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

Tanne

10-09-2010, 5:02pm

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!

Tonym

10-09-2010, 9:13pm

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.

Tanne

10-09-2010, 9:18pm

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

David

10-09-2010, 9:23pm

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.

Allann

10-09-2010, 10:32pm

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.

Tanne

11-09-2010, 5:15am

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?

OzzieTraveller

11-09-2010, 5:54am

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

Tanne

11-09-2010, 6:15am

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.

ZedEx

11-09-2010, 6:26am

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 :eek:

Tanne

11-09-2010, 9:09am

Rob Fraser

12-09-2010, 9:08am

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. :)

brewster

12-09-2010, 11:06am

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

Tanne

12-09-2010, 2:36pm

Whichever way you go I always think there is another lens out there that you think you should have bought!! Well, I do anyway. :)

haha true Rob! I do have a mental list already of a few other lenses I want! Thanks for letting me know about your experience!

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.

Thanks so much Bruce for letting me know what you are doing to/your thoughts! I would love to wait for the 70-300 but I am going on a holiday in a couple weeks and wanted one before then but was thinking today I can just take what I have and deal with the zoom later! I can take enough pics with what I have - will see! Im so indecisive. But I guess a lot of us are when it comes to lenses!

Old Skool

12-09-2010, 3:43pm

Other option is wait for new Tamron 70-300 lens. Nikon version just out, Canon one due shortly. Specs sound good and price is about $450US. See http://www.aputure.com/blog/2010/09/10/new-tamron-70-300mm-vc-sample-photos/

Tanne

12-09-2010, 3:54pm

in2fx

14-09-2010, 5:08pm

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/Australian-Birds/Ravens-Crows-Apostlebird/2010-08/988018130_5uQa6-X3.jpg

Canon 40D, ISO 500, f/9, 1/1000s, 300mm (60% of frame)
http://richardhallphotography.com/Australian-Birds/Robins-Scrub-robins/2010-09-07IMG3716Southern/998083488_EnwP9-X3.jpg

Canon 40D, ISO 500, f/9, 1/1250s, 300mm (about 25% of frame!)
http://richardhall.smugmug.com/photos/1002036833_MKYhx-X3.jpg

Canon 40D, ISO 800, f/8, 1/250s, 300mm, (50% of frame)
http://richardhallphotography.com/Australian-Birds/Cuckoos-Owls-Nightjars/2010-08-27IMG3215Southern/991796127_3CSCN-X3.jpg

I'm impressed :th3:

pod3009

15-09-2010, 5:21am

Canon have recently announced an L series version of the 70-300mm lens. Not sure of the price yet, but if you can wait a week or so there should be more info out there. Check the Canon website for basic details. IQ should be improved over the standard EF 70-300 lens.