For what its worth, I have a 70-300mm and am planning on selling it for a 70-200L. I've never been completely happy with the sharpness of my 70-300.
Rayne Member ![]() 79 posts Joined Apr 2010 Location: Prince George, BC More info |
That_Fox "In the Witless Protection Program" ![]() 1,386 posts Joined Jun 2008 Location: Southern California More info | May 28, 2010 17:54 | #17 hsmoscout wrote in post #10263734 ![]() So you think the sharpness is worth the hassle of the TC, the weight, the size Yes, it is more than worth it. The loss of IS is the only unfortunate factor, but with wildlife photography you'd want to keep the shutter speed high anyway to prevent subject movement. hsmoscout wrote in post #10263734 ![]() and the awkward stares from random strangers that I've heard come with big white L lenses? This is the most comical part of owning a white lens. The ridiculously stupid things people say to you Apparently I've been dubbed Foxy.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Boxmannn Member 99 posts Joined Jan 2007 Location: Bear, DE More info | May 28, 2010 18:20 | #18 DavidTK wrote in post #10263615 ![]() Tough call, but even as a happy former owner of a 70-300, I'd go with the 70-200 IS. I did like the fact that the 70-300 was small and the IS was pretty good, but the focus was slow at times. I was able to get some pretty good pictures from it (see my thread below), but there were plenty of times I found the sharpness lacking. If that's your main priority, I say go with the 70-200 and crop or buy an extender. https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=750950 +1 . When the focus was on it was great. Liked the color, range, and form factor, but sometimes the focus was maddingly slow and inconsistant. One day it was great, other days in slightly different light it was terrible. My .02 https://photography-on-the.net …?p=1193134&postcount=1656Gear List
LOG IN TO REPLY |
phreeky Goldmember 3,515 posts Likes: 15 Joined Oct 2007 Location: Australia More info | May 28, 2010 19:53 | #19 Most 70-300 copies seem to be very good up to about 200mm and then taper off towards 300mm, but are good again at 300mm @ F/8. The softening is a slight halo sort of look that a lot of 100-400 copies seem to exhibit @ 400mm also.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
msowsun "approx 8mm" ![]() More info | May 28, 2010 20:26 | #20 shaftmaster wrote in post #10263762 ![]() Is the 70-300 IS that much smaller? I own the 70-200 f/4L IS and I used to own the 75-300 IS and they seemed about the same size to me, but the 70-200 is probably heavier due to the better construction. Size is really not a factor. Get the 70-200 4L Mike Sowsun / SL1 / 80D / EF-S 24mm STM / EF-S 10-18mm STM / EF-S 18-55mm STM / EF-S 15-85mm USM / EF-S 55-250mm STM / 5D3 / Samyang 14mm 2.8 / EF 40mm 2.8 STM / EF 50mm 1.4 USM / EF 100mm 2.0 USM / EF 100mm 2.8 USM Macro / EF 24-105mm IS / EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS Mk II / EF 100-400 II / EF 1.4x II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
phreeky Goldmember 3,515 posts Likes: 15 Joined Oct 2007 Location: Australia More info | May 28, 2010 21:17 | #21 The 70-300 IS is still lighter (much lighter and smaller when the TC is factored in), has IS, and an extra 100mm built-in. Also certainly cheaper than a 70-200 with a TC.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Meanderthal Senior Member ![]() 532 posts Likes: 2 Joined Aug 2009 Location: Canada, btw Ottawa-Toronto More info | May 28, 2010 21:32 | #22 As a happy two-camera family, we have both the 70-300 and the 70-200IS. We agree with the 7 points above. However, different tools for different purposes. For no-fuss snapshots in daylight of family, pets, walking on woodland trails, the 70-300 is very fine. It is light, has good reach, and is durable enough for normal use. The 70-200 is a delight for more creative and demanding shots, especially for prints larger than 8'' x 10". When both are available, I sometimes reach for one, other times for the other, depending on my mood. When viewed on screen, friends and family have never commented on the difference in the results. Be happy. http://spitzhaven.zenfolio.com/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
john stakes Senior Member 424 posts Joined Oct 2009 More info | May 28, 2010 22:00 | #23 All very good info here. Just ask yourself if you want the best quality pictures, or if you want "convenient-good enough sometimes" pictures. Canon 50D, T2i, 70-200 2.8L, kit lenses
LOG IN TO REPLY |
hsmoscout THREAD STARTER Goldmember ![]() 1,166 posts Joined Oct 2009 Location: Camera Addicts Anonymous More info | Well, I think all these comments make the choice pretty obvious. I'll order the 70-200mm tonight and soon I will be a proud L owner. My Gear
LOG IN TO REPLY |
neonlazer Senior Member 343 posts Joined Nov 2009 More info | May 31, 2010 11:01 | #25 hsmoscout wrote in post #10266840 ![]() Well, I think all these comments make the choice pretty obvious. I'll order the 70-200mm tonight and soon I will be a proud L owner. ![]() Ditto! I will guarrantee you will enjoy it
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
Latest registered member is Dave In Hawaii 1337 guests, 134 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |