Printable View
Hello everyone,
Hope you can help. I have a canon 450d with the bog standard 18-55mm IS lens. I really enjoy landscape (mostly waterfalls) and sports photography and am thinking of the 70-200mm F4 L lens or the 70-300 F4-5.6 IS lens and need help to decide. I know the extenders are only used with the L series so think that a good pro.
Thanks in advance
Edd
Of those two lenses, I'd recommend the 70-200mm f/4L - it's optically superior to the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS (assuming you mean the non-L version and not the brand new L version due out by the end of this month). If you're shooting sports, the high shutter speeds mean less benefit from IS, and if you're shooting landscapes with the longer lens to isolate elements of the scene, you will probably be on a tripod. You might want to have a look at this recent thread, where the OP was debating among the various flavors of 70-200mm lenses and by the end was leaning toward a fast prime (which might be something for you to consider, too - especially if the sports you shoot are indoors).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesejm
I've had the 450D and 70-200 f4L combination and I absolutely loved it for sports! The image quality shot wide open at f4 is very good and sharp. Therefor it's a lot easier to use in certain circumstances. However it all depends on what your needs are. What sports are you refering to? One type of multiple types? Do you think you'd need IS for the other purposes? Are the sports indoors or outdoors? Let us know!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesejm
In this case it doesn't really matter. Since the 70-300 would not even take an adapter and retain AF on your camera. So unless you want to try and have an extender and manual focus lens....it's not something you should pay too uch attention to. And yes the 70-200 f4 is capable of an 1.4x extender and retains AF while having one on.
Quote from the review:
"With the 1.4x, the 70-200 f/4 becomes a 98-280mm f/5.6 lens that retains excellent image quality (adding more barrel distortion and some additional CA). But, image quality starts declining more noticeably with the 2x and the resulting 140-400mm f/8 lens only autofocuses on Canon's 1-Series bodies. This combination also results in a very dark viewfinder. The extenders increase the maximum magnification to .31x and .45x. "
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
The topic titlemakes a small suggestion [A] The new 70-300L is listed at 1500EUROS here.
- Jan
Hi Guys
Just looked at the 70-300L, would love it but way out of my price range, but we can but dream!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesejm
My sports photography is mostly outdoor field hockey action shots. Can usually move all the way up and down the sideline so only need to be able to reach side to side. My main interest is definitely the landscapes and waterfalls though.
Does the better image quality of the 70-200L mean cropping can almost compensate for the lost zoom range as compared to the 70-300?
Thanks for all your help
Edd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
Boy, do you folks across the Atlantic get, ummmm, screwed (for lack of a more tactful term)! It lists for US$1500 here, which means a 40% premium for you with the going exchange rates. Ouch! [:(]
<span style="color: #666666; font-size: xx-small;"]jonesejm wrote the following post at Oct 18, 2010 7:47 PM: <span class="field-item-description"]
<div id="ctl00_ctl00_content_content_ctl00_fragment_121 6_ctl01_ctl00_PostForm__QuoteText"]
<span style="color: #000000;"]Hi Guys
<span style="color: #000000;"]Just looked at the 70-300L, would love it but way out of my price range, but we can but dream!
<span style="color: #000000;"]Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesejm
<span style="color: #000000;"]My sports photography is mostly outdoor field hockey action shots. Can usually move all the way up and down the sideline so only need to be able to reach side to side. My main interest is definitely the landscapes and waterfalls though.
<span style="color: #000000;"]Does the better image quality of the 70-200L mean cropping can almost compensate for the lost zoom range as compared to the 70-300?
<span style="color: #000000;"]Thanks for all your help
<span style="color: #000000;"]Edd
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
</div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Say that again, it seems that in Great Brittain it's even worse [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesejm
I have shot some hockey games myself with the 70-200 f4L and my friend used the Tamron 70-300 super cheap lens at the same game. While the range of 70-300mm was better. It also had quite some negatives. But that's another lens than you're looking at.
I really liked my 70-200 f4L while it was sharp wide open. I used it at f4 without a doubt. I assume you live somewhere in Great Brittain so the weather is probably much the same or even worse than here in the Netherlands. Meaning a lot of grey weather [:S] Therefor f5.6 is not advisable at all! At least for sports that is. The IS system is practically useless for the hockeygames, but it might be better for the landscapes and the waterfalls though.
However when you also bring a tripod you could probably live without the IS system.
Right, now if we take a look at the ISO charts of both lenses we can make a few conclusions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesejm
Yes definetely. When you view the sharpness of both lenses zoomed out to their maximum and aperture is wide-open. The 70-200 is by far more sharp than the 70-300. Of course stopping down helps, but the biggest improvement is in the centre.
The 70-300 seems to be quite soft and with very unsharp midframes and edges, while the 70-200L is definitely better in this regard.
When you compare both lenses at f8 and f11 (typical landscape apertures I think) you can clearly see a difference in sharpness. And for landscapes it's nice to have an overall good sharpness.
My vote is with the 70-200 f4L, since it's great with sports and it has a better aperture and more useable sharpness overall. However it does lack IS, so I hope that's not a big dealbreaker for you.
Jan
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesejm
Yes, I think so. On your XSi, a cropped 70-200 would only be slightly better than a down-sampled 70-300, but if you upgrade to a new DSLR in the future, it will be a lot better.
I don't have a direct comparison, but here is something similar:
70-300 f/4.5-5.6 @ 300mm f/5.6 vs 70-200 f/4 L + 1.4X TC @ 280mm f/5.6 (both on 40D)
As you can see, the L lens plus TC is sharper and more detailed. The 40D is 10 MP, and the 70-300 is much closer to being oversampled than the 70-200.This means it will benefit more and more from smaller pixels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
This is the way i'm heading now. Don't think IS should be that important as the sport is outdoors and the landscape pics will be using a tripod.
Wish i could afford the 70-300L!!! But I think the use of the extenders with the 70-200 is a big plus also.
Very much looking forward to purchasing the lens, just need to find the best price now!
Thanks
Edd
Good to hear Edd,
if you have the chance, it'salways good to try the lens(es) out in a local store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesejm
Me too, but for sports the f5.6 maximum aperture would always be a downside...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesejm
The extenders will always decrease the image quality for some level.
Good luck finding a right price, it seems that we're getting screwed here in Europe [:P]
Jan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
It seems we are!
Thanks for all your help, off to the shop at the weekend if i don't change my mind by then!!!
Edd
I haven
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesejm
For the amount of money you can of course look at some alternatives. However it's hard. Tamron and Sigma both have f2.8 versions, but both have their flaws and are both probably somewhat more expensive. Read the reviews if you want. When I bought my Canon 70-200 f4L I was aware of 3rd party lenses, but I wasn't their biggest fan. I'd rather have one perfect f4 lens than an f2.8 lens with flaws like lesser sharpness or focusissues.
The other 70-200 versions from canon are just way more expensive. I bet that if you would hold the 70-200 f4L with IS you'd be in love with it, but it's also twice the price and if you live without IS, there's not too much difference, since the 70-200 f4L is a great lens.
Good luck this weekend [Y]