| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/08/2007 11:31:15 AM · #1 |
Hey,
I own a Canon Rebel XTi with a Canon EF-s 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS lens and now I want to go a little bit tele. I have done some research and now I've got two choices:
1-Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
2-Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
I got no problem to pay more to get the better one (No.1) but the problem is that this lens has 100mm less focal length. What do you think? considering that I am gonna use it as walk-around lens for street shots and portrait.
Thanks
Message edited by author 2007-11-08 16:32:26. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 11:36:55 AM · #2 |
Get yourself a 100-400L IS
Sure it's heavier and more expensive, but what a great lens :- )
100-400L
Edit to add - I actually walk about with this lens a lot. But if you are going to it benefits from a different neck strap :- )
Message edited by author 2007-11-08 16:38:07. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 11:46:33 AM · #3 |
the 70-300 is a SIGNIFICANT downgrade in quality compared to the 70-200 f/4. Personally I could never use a 70-300 period.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 11:56:43 AM · #4 |
If its a choice of the 2 you mentioned I'd get the 70-200F/4. I've sold mine (for the 2.8IS) but still nip round to visit it from time to time ( talj now owns it).
 one of my first ever pictures with the F/4 |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 12:21:31 PM · #5 |
Actually I like to have longer focal lengths lenses, like 100-400 L which Jedusi proposed, but you know they are more expensive (out of my budget), heavy and eye-catcher. I mean they kinda scare people !
so I want as I said to make a compromise between my budget, focal length and image quality.
If you have another lens in mind I would be more than happy to hear about that.
Cheers |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 01:22:37 PM · #6 |
This has been discussed in other threads (I know because it was myself and some others asking the same question). There a photos from the 70-300 posted which may help you make up your mind.
Do an advanced search for subject "70-200 or 70-300"
I went with the 70-200 f4 IS USM. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 01:48:46 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by arkadash:
so I want as I said to make a compromise between my budget, focal length and image quality. |
You said walkaround street photography and portrait. I think the 70-200 is a great lens for most of that, though the lack of a wider end can be problematic at times.
One other lens to consider is the 24-105 F4L, about the best damn walkaround there is. You gain width at the cost of reach, but again reach is not really what comes to mind for the types of shooting you initially described.
Though I guess you could probably pick up both the 70-200 and a 10-22 for the price of the 24-105.
I have to revert to my usual suggestion now. Save up and buy them all. 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L, and then sit around trying to prevent yourself from picking up the L 50 and 85 primes...
Message edited by author 2007-11-08 18:49:43. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 02:36:44 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by arkadash:
so I want as I said to make a compromise between my budget, focal length and image quality. |
You said walkaround street photography and portrait. I think the 70-200 is a great lens for most of that, though the lack of a wider end can be problematic at times.
One other lens to consider is the 24-105 F4L, about the best damn walkaround there is. You gain width at the cost of reach, but again reach is not really what comes to mind for the types of shooting you initially described.
Though I guess you could probably pick up both the 70-200 and a 10-22 for the price of the 24-105.
I have to revert to my usual suggestion now. Save up and buy them all. 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L, and then sit around trying to prevent yourself from picking up the L 50 and 85 primes... |
haha thats what i did/am doing. im picking up a 70-200mm2.8 next week probably, and i have the 24-70mm2.8 and i have a 50mm1.4(not L but still good) then i might pick up a 100mm macro as well |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 03:05:51 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
the 70-300 is a SIGNIFICANT downgrade in quality compared to the 70-200 f/4. Personally I could never use a 70-300 period. |
Well I guess there is first for everything I never thought I would strongly disagree with you on something but Im making an exception here. The 70-300 the OP wrote about is a great lens and has had great reviews and I will admit that the 70-200 is sharper, its not SIGNIFICANTLY sharper. There is the 75-300 that has less than stellar optics of which is the one Im hoping thats you were thinking of...
-dave |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 03:08:53 PM · #10 |
| Yeah, all the reviews that I've read say that the 70-300mm IS is a very good lens. I've seen it optimistically referred to as a "hidden L." The 75-300 is the one that's low quality. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 04:04:47 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Stiger:
Yeah, all the reviews that I've read say that the 70-300mm IS is a very good lens. I've seen it optimistically referred to as a "hidden L." The 75-300 is the one that's low quality. |
I've never seen that. You talking about Fred Miranda reviews where every other post about pretty much every lens says "as good as L"?
It is a good lens.
Message edited by author 2007-11-08 21:05:08. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 04:19:17 PM · #12 |
I may potentially stand corrected. However, we can always just compare the two ourselves and decide on our own what is good and what isn't.
70-300 IS USM vs. 70-200 f/4 @ 70mm and f/5.6
Note the middle panel which represents the edge of the photo. Quite a difference there. The 3rd panel represents the extreme edge. Also quite a difference.
Same lenses at 200mm f/5.6
Not quite as bad at the long end, but still a difference one can see.
EDIT: If you are using the lenses on a crop sensor, I think panel 3 (the bottom one) will be less relevant. Panel 2 will represent the edge.
Message edited by author 2007-11-08 21:38:28. |
|
|
|
11/08/2007 04:46:48 PM · #13 |
Get the better quality 200mm and when you need more pull, use the 1.4 adapter/teleconverter thingy.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 05:11:02 PM · #14 |
Get the 70-200mm f/4L, you won't regret it. I just got it over the 70-300 over the summer and haven't looked back. Next up for me is the 300mm f/4L IS prime with the 1.4x converter to make it a 420mm f/5.6 IS, saving up is the problem. But in this situation, the L lens is hands down the winner.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 07:19:27 PM · #15 |
Im not going to try to tell you which to get other than I do own the 70-300IS lens listed and that you should try to RENT the lenses you like to see if they suit YOUR needs :) I have no regrets about my 70-300IS and maybe I lucked out some how and got a good one but its the IQ in the following images that I like from this lens and a vast majority in my portfolio are shot with my 70-300...
 slight crop from original (400D, F5, ISO100, 1/200, 160mm)
[thumb]578692[/thumb] %100 crop of above photo
-dave
|
|
|
|
11/08/2007 08:08:38 PM · #16 |
Not choosing sides here, but I'd be interested to see the detail on the 300 end of the 70-300, I got the 70-200mm 4L because the long end on the (earlier) Canon, Tamron and Sigma big zooms never thrilled me for detail (not as a close up lens but subjects further out) on the long end. (Wife has the 70-200mm now as I picked up the 100-400mm L glass)
Even with a non-canon TC the 70-200mm 4L does alright.
[thumb]610610[/thumb]
100% Crop
70-200mm 4L + Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DG x1.4 TC
1/800sec f/9 ISO-100
ED: to say @ 280mm
Message edited by author 2007-11-09 01:20:59. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 08:14:08 AM · #17 |
I can't comment on its suitability for street photography, but I just got back from a bird photo workshop. The people who were using the 70-300 that you're talking about didn't come home with anything that really impressed me. It may have been the lens, or it may have been their skills, or a combination of the two.
The 100-400L, on the other hand, seemed to work well for people.
Nobody was using the 70-200 f/4L. Without a TC, it's really too short for birds. But a fine length for street photography. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 08:34:18 AM · #18 |
| I don't own either, but the 70-300IS reviews are every bit as good as any other lens in that price/focal range |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 08:55:41 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by hopper:
I don't own either, but the 70-300IS reviews are every bit as good as any other lens in that price/focal range |
I have that lens and am very satisfied with it.
Is this lens the "Hidden L"? Hard to say, so just check out the photos for both lenses here at DPC and decide for yourself (keeping in mind that they may have been post-processed).
|
|
|
|
11/09/2007 10:02:20 AM · #20 |
I still say rent or borrow the lens(s) that you are interested in and shoot what you want to shoot and decide from there...
-dave |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 10:03:30 PM EDT.
