£500 for a canon lens

[Sheiky]

The new 70-300L is listed at 1500EUROS here.

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! [img]/emoticons/emotion-6.gif[/img]
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Say that again, it seems that in Great Brittain it's even worse [:P]

<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.

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:

<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?

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

[jonesejm]

<span style="color: #000000;"]


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.

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

[Sheiky]

Good to hear Edd,


if you have the chance, it'salways good to try the lens(es) out in a local store.

Wish i could afford the 70-300L!!!

Me too, but for sports the f5.6 maximum aperture would always be a downside...

But I think the use of the extenders with the 70-200 is a big plus also.

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

[jonesejm]

Good luck finding a right price, it seems that we're getting screwed here in Europe

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

[jonesejm]

I haven

[Sheiky]

I haven't really considered any other makes of lens as I always thought Canon were far superior. Should I be considering other makes of the 70-200L or their versions?


Edd
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

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]