Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 15 Oct 2010 (Friday) 00:16
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200 F4L vs 70-300 VC

 
Combatmedic870
Goldmember
Avatar
1,739 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Salem ,OR
     
Oct 15, 2010 10:44 |  #16

MTAtech wrote in post #11102190 (external link)
THANKS!
As previously said, we don't know that for sure. However, in a few days I hope to answer that question in a scientific way, side-by-side comparisons.

I'm trying now to determine test methodology. This is what I've come up with so far and comments are welcome:

Test each lens as follows:
1) Sharpness Test on same subject - three images; 70mm, ~135mm, 200mm. Camera mounted on tripod at f/11 to illuminate any shake blur and depth of field blur that may be mistaken for 'softness.'

2) Hand-held test at 1/30 sec. at 200mm. This tests the advantage of Tamron's VC compared to Canon's lower f/4 (at 200mm, the Tam is likely to be f/5.6 min.)

Subjective tests: Speed at AF; feel; etc.

^^^^You beat me!!!

Why would you shoot at F11??

Shoot them both at F8...diffraction will affect the images at F11.


Nikon D700: 16-35 F4, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8,105 VR Micro, 135F2 DC, 80-200 2.8 AFS
Olympus XZ-1
,Ryan
Sometimes, I think Photography is worse than Crack.:oops:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Combatmedic870
Goldmember
Avatar
1,739 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Salem ,OR
     
Oct 15, 2010 10:45 |  #17

tkbslc wrote in post #11102242 (external link)
If moving subjects in low light were my target, would f4 be fast enough anyway?

Nope....Maybe with a 5Dmk2 at ISO 12,800 :)


Nikon D700: 16-35 F4, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8,105 VR Micro, 135F2 DC, 80-200 2.8 AFS
Olympus XZ-1
,Ryan
Sometimes, I think Photography is worse than Crack.:oops:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bjyoder
Goldmember
Avatar
1,664 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Central Ohio
     
Oct 15, 2010 10:45 |  #18

tkbslc wrote in post #11102242 (external link)
If moving subjects in low light were my target, would f4 be fast enough anyway?

Depends on a lot of things, but it could make some difference; 1/30 @ f/5.6 will almost certainly blur. 1/60 @ f/4 may not (or at least not be as noticeable).


Ben

500px (external link) | Website (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
19,170 posts
Gallery: 58 photos
Likes: 3846
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Oct 15, 2010 10:48 |  #19

MTAtech wrote in post #11102190 (external link)
THANKS!
As previously said, we don't know that for sure. However, in a few days I hope to answer that question in a scientific way, side-by-side comparisons.

I'm trying now to determine test methodology. This is what I've come up with so far and comments are welcome:

Test each lens as follows:
1) Sharpness Test on same subject - three images; 70mm, ~135mm, 200mm. Camera mounted on tripod at f/11 to illuminate any shake blur and depth of field blur that may be mistaken for 'softness.'

2) Hand-held test at 1/30 sec. at 200mm. This tests the advantage of Tamron's VC compared to Canon's lower f/4 (at 200mm, the Tam is likely to be f/5.6 min.)

Subjective tests: Speed at AF; feel; etc.

Some tripod shots from the Tamron "wide open" and the F4 at the same f-stop, at overlapping focal lengths would be nice, too, so people can see what you get from each lens in the situations where that's needed.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Combatmedic870
Goldmember
Avatar
1,739 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Salem ,OR
     
Oct 15, 2010 10:48 |  #20

bjyoder wrote in post #11102268 (external link)
Depends on a lot of things, but it could make some difference; 1/30 @ f/5.6 will almost certainly blur. 1/60 @ f/4 may not (or at least not be as noticeable).

Ive never shot moving subjects with such a slow SS... usually atleast 1/160 for me

I tried using the 70-200 F4 IS L for dance and yeaaaaa.....didnt work out so well for me inside with my 7D. It focused, just couldnt get a high enough SS at ISO6400...12800 would have worked but the pics wouldnt have been as i wanted them. I know I wouldnt want to pay for ISO 12800 pics. :)


Nikon D700: 16-35 F4, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8,105 VR Micro, 135F2 DC, 80-200 2.8 AFS
Olympus XZ-1
,Ryan
Sometimes, I think Photography is worse than Crack.:oops:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
Oct 15, 2010 10:49 |  #21

tkbslc wrote in post #11102242 (external link)
If moving subjects in low light were my target, would f4 be fast enough anyway?

With moving targets the f/4 would let you have faster Shutter speeds then the Tamron . The VC won't be much help here.


Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ingraman
Member
169 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Oct 15, 2010 10:54 as a reply to  @ CountryBoy's post |  #22

I'd like to see some 55-250 IS vs 70-300 VC comparisons. The 70-200 is superior in some situations, but not a big fan of non-stabilized telephotos.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MTAtech
Member
99 posts
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
     
Oct 15, 2010 10:54 |  #23

bjyoder wrote in post #11102230 (external link)
  • Will cost you - after rebate - $400.00. Only!
    [
  • I bought mine with a new DSLR and therefore my final cost should be $449.99 minus 10% Crutchfield discount (~$50) minus the new 10/11-12/31 rebate ($100) = $300!

    New Tamron rebate: http://www.tamron-usa.com …ATqGHAYBwAAAAAA​AAp98CAA== (external link)


    60D, Tamron 70-300 VC, Sigma 20-40 2.8 DG and remembers when ISO was ASA

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    bjyoder
    Goldmember
    Avatar
    1,664 posts
    Joined Jun 2007
    Location: Central Ohio
         
    Oct 15, 2010 10:57 |  #24

    Combatmedic870 wrote in post #11102292 (external link)
    Ive never shot moving subjects with such a slow SS... usually atleast 1/160 for me

    I tried using the 70-200 F4 IS L for dance and yeaaaaa.....didnt work out so well for me inside with my 7D. It focused, just couldnt get a high enough SS at ISO6400...12800 would have worked but the pics wouldnt have been as i wanted them. I know I wouldnt want to pay for ISO 12800 pics. :)

    Sometimes shooting concerts at, lets say "local" venues, 1/60 is about the best you can get sometimes. Careful timing wins, though there is normally still a lot of motion.

    I'm not saying f/4 is ideal in low light, but better than f/5.6.


    Ben

    500px (external link) | Website (external link) | Gear

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    MTAtech
    Member
    99 posts
    Joined Jul 2004
    Location: Long Island, NY
         
    Oct 15, 2010 11:05 |  #25

    Combatmedic870 wrote in post #11102253 (external link)
    Why would you shoot at F11??

    Minimizes depth of field blur.


    60D, Tamron 70-300 VC, Sigma 20-40 2.8 DG and remembers when ISO was ASA

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    sth_
    Senior Member
    Avatar
    811 posts
    Joined Mar 2008
    Location: Europe
         
    Oct 15, 2010 11:10 |  #26

    MTAtech wrote in post #11102420 (external link)
    Minimizes depth of field blur.

    But is already limited by diffraction on 18mp @ APS-C.

    I wouldn't go beyond f/8 for a sharpness test at that resolution and sensor size.


    My completely outdated Flickr (external link) :: Gear

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    InsanelyMarc
    Member
    193 posts
    Joined Jul 2009
    Location: Pembroke Pines, FL
         
    Oct 15, 2010 11:19 |  #27

    damn I just got my 70-200 f/4L too. Since having it sometimes I wish I had gone f/4L IS and I somewhat miss the extra 50mm from my old 55-250mm. This sounds like an interesting lens.


    Marc
    Gear

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    tkbslc
    THREAD ­ STARTER
    Cream of the Crop
    24,586 posts
    Likes: 26
    Joined Nov 2008
    Location: Utah, USA
         
    Oct 15, 2010 11:25 |  #28

    All I would need to see is shots at 70, 135, 200 and 300 at wide open and f8. Would also like some general feeling on AF speed and accuracy, but those are tough to test scientifically.


    Taylor
    Galleries: Flickr (external link)
    EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    tkbslc
    THREAD ­ STARTER
    Cream of the Crop
    24,586 posts
    Likes: 26
    Joined Nov 2008
    Location: Utah, USA
         
    Oct 15, 2010 11:39 |  #29

    CountryBoy wrote in post #11102300 (external link)
    With moving targets the f/4 would let you have faster Shutter speeds then the Tamron . The VC won't be much help here.


    That is true, but I guess I feel like if I am shooting in low light, f4 is pretty slow, too. I guess it would give me an extra 10 minutes as the sun goes down, but it is not a fast lens. I have a hard time using f2.8 indoors, so I know neither are acceptable there.


    Taylor
    Galleries: Flickr (external link)
    EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    Combatmedic870
    Goldmember
    Avatar
    1,739 posts
    Joined Oct 2009
    Location: Salem ,OR
         
    Oct 15, 2010 12:12 |  #30

    sth_ wrote in post #11102441 (external link)
    But is already limited by diffraction on 18mp @ APS-C.

    I wouldn't go beyond f/8 for a sharpness test at that resolution and sensor size.

    Yep yep!

    bw!

    If it was on a 5Dc or a 1dmk2 go to F11 all you want. But not on a 18mp crop sensor.

    I mean its you test and do what you want. But when you post results people are going to be b**ch*** cause you shot at F11 vs F8. just trying to save you the...BLAH ness of everything


    Nikon D700: 16-35 F4, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8,105 VR Micro, 135F2 DC, 80-200 2.8 AFS
    Olympus XZ-1
    ,Ryan
    Sometimes, I think Photography is worse than Crack.:oops:

      
      LOG IN TO REPLY
    sponsored links
    (this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

    39,991 views & 0 likes for this thread
    70-200 F4L vs 70-300 VC
    FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
    AAA
    x 1600
    y 1600

    Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

    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!


    COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
    Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


    POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
    version 2.1 /
    code and design
    by Pekka Saarinen ©
    for photography-on-the.net

    Latest registered member is m.nobles
    836 guests, 243 members online
    Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

    Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.