70-200 f/4L + 1.4x vs. 75-300 USM III

[MadTony]

I suspect that I know the answer already, but I was wondering how the image quality would compare between these two options? If I am correct in thinking that even with the 1.4x extender on, the L set-up would blow the cheapie 75-300 out of the water at all focal lengths and aperatures, is there any reason to keep the 75-300, or should I sell it ASAP? (I thought about keeping it for its size and weight compared to the bigger glass, but then think that if I am going to be packing the SLR and not a P&S, I should keep the best glass on it that I can.)

I might try a side-to-side test, just for kicks. Any thoughts? Should I keep (as lightweight backup) or sell the 75-300?

[ron chappel]

I have seen online comparisons between these two and the 75-300 does seem to allways come out looking 'pretty good considering'
...Of course in actual use it's a totally different story.The 70-200/4+TC will get a high percentage of keepers while the 75-300 is nothing like that

[tim]

Have you seen this review (http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56.html)? It doesn't mention that TC but it has lens comparisions with the F4 and 75-300.

[JusSmith]

I would keep the 75-300 (as I have) as you probably won't get much for it anyway! I use mine on occasions when I don't want to get the L out (environment conditions). If it's kept away from 300 (I stick at 200, as far as my L anyway) then the quality is ok after a bit of post touch-up.

[Cadwell]

I see little point in fitting a lower grade lens to your SLR when you own a better one that covers the same range. That smacks of masochism...

[Skip Souza]

I see little point in fitting a lower grade lens to your SLR when you own a better one that covers the same range. That smacks of masochism...
I can understand using the cheap lens in really nasty weather, (sandstorm, sleet, hail, nuclear fallout), due to the cost of the L. Go ahead and sacrifice the throw-away and keep the L in the velvet lined, platinum clad, diamond encrusted case :lol: :lol: :lol:

[condyk]

I would keep the 75-300 (as I have) as you probably won't get much for it anyway!

Not at all sure about that ... I tracked the cheaper zoom lenses for a couple of weeks waiting for a bargain on ebay. The 75-300 regularly got over £100 and even beyond £130 on occasion. This is crazy as they can be had for that price new via 7dayshop
:lol: :lol: :rolleyes: ... even the USM.

Of course, depend how much was paid for it originally. The poster may even make money on it :) I just can't see the point keeping it. Get the extender with the money instead ... I'm doing that, currently selling my 70-300 Sigma to pay for it (at no loss!) and then using it with my SH 70-200 F4 L.

[mdr]

Living in Scotland, the environment conditions are always against you :(.

You've nearly convinced me that I should buy cheap lenses and leave my L glass in my display cabinet next to my classic rangefinder collection :evil:.

[Cadwell]

The L series lenses are designed for professional use and are expected to take a certain amount of "abuse". They're not intended for a cosseted life.

[JusSmith]

Easy for you pros to say with big budgets! My 75-300 cost me £150 14 years ago, I would love someone to offer me £100 for it!

[mdr]

You thought I was serious? :lol: :lol: :lol:

As an amateur, and had to save up hard to afford a second hand 70-200mm f4 L and 1.4x TC Mk I. Still have my 75-300mm, but never used it again since I got the 70-200mm, so it'll go on eBay this weekend.

Gave the 70-300mm III USM to my dad for his 60th birthday.

Were both happy :D :D.

[Andy_T]

The 'L' lenses are weather sealed, while the 75-300 is not.

I would suspect that is actually a reason more to use them in adverse conditions, as the risk to damage the lens is actually smaller.

Best regards,
Andy

[Cadwell]

The 'L' lenses are weather sealed, while the 75-300 is not.

I would suspect that is actually a reason more to use them in adverse conditions, as the risk to damage the lens is actually smaller.

Best regards,
Andy


Not strictly true. SOME L series lenses are weather sealed, by no means all. The EF 70-200mm f/4L is NOT so don't go using it in a downpour and assuming you're safe.

[malla1962]

Not at all sure about that ... I tracked the cheaper zoom lenses for a couple of weeks waiting for a bargain on ebay. The 75-300 regularly got over £100 and even beyond £130 on occasion. This is crazy as they can be had for that price new via 7dayshop
:lol: :lol: :rolleyes: ... even the USM.

Of course, depend how much was paid for it originally. The poster may even make money on it :) I just can't see the point keeping it. Get the extender with the money instead ... I'm doing that, currently selling my 70-300 Sigma to pay for it (at no loss!) and then using it with my SH 70-200 F4 L.
75-300 mk3 usm at 7day shop is £119 and yoy are right ive seen the go on ebay for £130 plus.

[condyk]

75-300 mk3 usm at 7day shop is £119 and yoy are right ive seen the go on ebay for £130 plus.

When it comes to saving and making cash I'm not often wrong :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So, JusSmith, you know where to sell your 75-300 now! Nice picture, good description, good selling record and you're sorted.

[CoolToolGuy]

To address some points -

The 70-200 f4L is not weather sealed, but it will still take more abuse than any of the 75-300s.
There are plenty of folks who are not as 'into it' as the folks who frequent this forum who will be very pleased with the 75-300. You can get something for it, so I would sell it.
The only negative to the 70-200 f4L/ 1.4 TC combination is to your bank balance. ;) :lol:
Have Fun,

[Medic1]

I am torn on this issue. I lean heavily to the 70-200 f4L (for obvious reasons), but a friend with the new rebel XT has produced some amazing results first time out with the 75-300 non-IS lens. I was shocked (all things considered) at how sharp they were (good lighting conditions). That being said, the constant f4 aperture (without TC) is a big plus, and the L glass won't be as soft at the long end.

I say go L glass if you can afford it, if I had the 75-300 I think I would keep it in my bag anyway. Its only going for slightly over $200 CDN, which is less than a single days work. Almost worth it to keep both around, just in case the L needs to visit Canon at some point, you still have a long backup.

[mdr]

Adding a few points:

The 70-200mm L focusses much, much faster than the 70-300.
The 70-200mm f4 L will not or hardly ever hunt, while the 70-300 often hunts.
The 70-200mm L and 1.4 TC Mk I can be found pretty cheaply at second hand dealers, but more expensive than new on eBay.
The 70-200mm f4 L is white, and will not overheat in the tropics like the 70-300mm does, which affect quality.