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 29 Nov 2013 (Friday) 22:23
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Good 70-200 vs. 70-300

 
chriso777
Hatchling
9 posts
Joined Nov 2013
     
Nov 29, 2013 22:23 |  #1

So, in looking for a good telephoto, I've come across an issue. I love the common 70-200s, but I feel I may try some wildlife photography or various things that require a long focal length. I'd love a 70-300, but the good ones start going out of my budget. So I have two options.
1. expensive 70-200
2. cheap 70-300
Even though the 70-300 is a longer focal length, could it be said that the 70-200 COULD technically go longer because it can be cropped more and stay sharp? I mean...most cheap 70-300s have just alright sharpness (or so I've heard), but I know many 70-200s are praised for tack-sharp images. So if I crop the 70-200, could I technically get the same or even a longer focal length than a cheaper 70-300?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jdhill
Member
Avatar
232 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Michigan
     
Nov 30, 2013 11:03 |  #2

I had the same dilemma earlier this year. I had a 70-300 nonL and my images weren't as sharp as I'd like. So I decided to get a 70-200 f4L (non-IS). I finally pulled the trigger when Canon had a deal on their refurb lenses - I got one for $475!

So far, I couldn't be any happier with my choice. Cropped images on the 70-200 are a million times better than non-cropped images on the 70-300. Plus, I can shoot at f4 and images are tack sharp. Sure, there are times where I wish I had more reach, but that's where a 1.4x teleconverter could come in handy.

Other options include some big Sigma lenses (Bigma) - 50-500mm, 120-400mm, 150-500mm, etc. Those are more in the price range of Canon's 70-300 and 100-400L lenses.


John
Feedback

Canon 6D | Canon 24-105mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art | Canon 85 f/1.8 | Canon 70-200 f/4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NotBlake
Member
Avatar
212 posts
Joined Mar 2012
     
Nov 30, 2013 11:48 |  #3

What about a 200mm f2.8 and A 2x tele.

Think that's the cheapest way to 400mm with decent iq




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,262 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3683
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Nov 30, 2013 11:51 |  #4

Or even a 70-200 f4 IS w/ 1.4 extender.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chriso777
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
9 posts
Joined Nov 2013
     
Nov 30, 2013 15:42 as a reply to  @ FarmerTed1971's post |  #5

Yeah. I guess I can reconsider the 70-200 f4 non-is and is. I was actually looking at the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 with VC. I've heard incredible things about it. I have found that I love me some good wide apertures for low light and some tasty bokeh never hurt anyone. But I guess the main point is that, yes, a 70-200 cropped can beat a cheaper 70-300 uncropped. Cool. Thanks! Now...I just need to choose between these (cheapest to most expensive):
1. canon f4
2. canon f4 is
3. tamron f2.8 VC
The Tamron is a stretch, so if any of you guys see a sale or something, let me know! I would LOVE to have that thing!
Thanks!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jnadz
Senior Member
279 posts
Joined Feb 2012
     
Dec 01, 2013 00:02 |  #6

If you can afford the more expensive 70-200, why not just get the more expensive 70-300 (ie the "L") and be done? It's super sharp (likely sharper than a TC on a 70-200).


5D Mark III | SL1 | EOS-M | S100
Rokinon 14 f2.8 | Σ35 f1.4 Art | Canon 40 f2.8 | Canon 50 f1.8 mark I | Canon 100L | Canon 135L | Canon 70-300L
Canon EF-M 11-22 | Canon EF-M 22 f2 | Canon EF-M 55-200

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Dec 01, 2013 00:42 |  #7

chriso777 wrote in post #16489492 (external link)
So, in looking for a good telephoto, I've come across an issue. I love the common 70-200s, but I feel I may try some wildlife photography or various things that require a long focal length. I'd love a 70-300, but the good ones start going out of my budget. So I have two options.
1. expensive 70-200
2. cheap 70-300
Even though the 70-300 is a longer focal length, could it be said that the 70-200 COULD technically go longer because it can be cropped more and stay sharp? I mean...most cheap 70-300s have just alright sharpness (or so I've heard), but I know many 70-200s are praised for tack-sharp images. So if I crop the 70-200, could I technically get the same or even a longer focal length than a cheaper 70-300?

If you're spending your own money, consider the very effective Tamron 70-300mm vibration control lens (external link), which was used to generate these images.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i1174.photobuck​et.com …827a0000a_zpsc2​8e7c6d.jpg (external link)



PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i1174.photobuck​et.com …009a0000d_zpsea​816f14.jpg (external link)


The Tamron lens (external link) is a good choice for those who want to create good images. Its main shortcoming is that the purchaser can not brag about the amount of money spent on equipment. Any emotional emptiness of this kind will be offset by the sensation of a full bank account caused by the lens' low price.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chriso777
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
9 posts
Joined Nov 2013
     
Dec 01, 2013 08:48 as a reply to  @ DC Fan's post |  #8

Huh...those pictures are honestly really nice. I've heard mixed things about the Tamron 70-300. Some, like you, get great results, others not so much. Possibly it's just a third-party inconsistency thing?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lbsimon
...never exercised in my life
Avatar
2,682 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 268
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Boston, MA
     
Dec 01, 2013 09:07 |  #9

chriso777 wrote in post #16492459 (external link)
Huh...those pictures are honestly really nice. I've heard mixed things about the Tamron 70-300. Some, like you, get great results, others not so much. Possibly it's just a third-party inconsistency thing?

I've had the Tamron 70-300VC for a couple of years, still do and use it extensively. Up to about 250mm it is sharp when stopped down to about f/8 (at 200-300mm it's only f/5.6 max opening). It is not so sharp wide open, and at around 300 mm. It likes bright light, as in low light the AF starts hunting, but not excessively. So for the money - currently $350 new after a rebate - it is hard to beat.


5D Mark IV | 6D | S110
EF 17-40L | EF 24-105L (two) | EF 70-200L F4 IS | EF 100-400L II | EF 85 1.8 | EF 50 1.8 STM | Canon 1.4x III | Canon 1.4x II
Yongnuo 685 | Nissin Di622 M2 | Nissin Di422

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
I ­ Love ­ Cats
Senior Member
269 posts
Joined Nov 2013
     
Dec 01, 2013 09:41 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

jdhill wrote in post #16490372 (external link)
...Cropped images on the 70-200 are a million times better than non-cropped images on the 70-300...

Most of the reviews I've seen put it at more like 937,328 times better. Is this a rounding error, or an exaggeration? :lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,181 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2578
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Dec 01, 2013 12:04 |  #11

chriso777 wrote in post #16492459 (external link)
Huh...those pictures are honestly really nice. I've heard mixed things about the Tamron 70-300. Some, like you, get great results, others not so much. Possibly it's just a third-party inconsistency thing?

or it's a user thing...most new photographers don't spend a lot of money on big lenses...so they don't have the experience needed to get great images out of cheaper lenses...

if you're really after wildlife photography, a lens that stops at 200mm is not the way to go...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdhill
Member
Avatar
232 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Michigan
     
Dec 01, 2013 13:07 |  #12

I Love Cats wrote in post #16492546 (external link)
Most of the reviews I've seen put it at more like 937,328 times better. Is this a rounding error, or an exaggeration? :lol:

Lol I rounded up


John
Feedback

Canon 6D | Canon 24-105mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art | Canon 85 f/1.8 | Canon 70-200 f/4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stpix
Member
222 posts
Joined Mar 2013
     
Dec 01, 2013 13:39 |  #13

How about the Canon 100-400 zoom?


7d T3i EF-S 10-22 EF-S 17-55 EF-S 18-55 EF-S 60 Macro EF-S 55-250 EF 400 mm 5.6 L EX 430
http://stpix.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceegee
Goldmember
2,320 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Montreal, Quebec
     
Dec 01, 2013 14:53 |  #14

It would be helpful to know what your budget is, since there's a considerable difference in cost between your cheapest and most expensive solutions.

To answer your original question, I used to own the 70-300 non-L, and while it was good up to about 250 mm, I found mine to be soft after that, to the point of being unusable. I eventually sold it and kept my 55-250 instead, which was (and still is) good throughout the range. If you think you'll be shooting mainly above 250 mm, I would not recommend the 70-300 non-L.

I still own (although am selling) a 70-200 f4 IS, and it's an outstanding lens in every respect. For a lens in this focal range, I'd definitely recommend going with IS if you can; it makes a huge difference in poor light. I used to own a f2.8 non-IS version of the lens, but sold it for two reasons: weight (the f2.8 lenses are huge) and lack of IS. My keeper rate, even in low light, improved considerably when I bought the f4 IS instead. And, as an aside, I liked the smaller, much lighter format better. If you haven't considered the size and weight difference, you might want to do so. It doesn't bother some people, but it did bother me.

I now own the 70-300L, and consider it to be the best of the bunch. It's a fantastic lens, smaller and lighter than the f2.8s and equal in sharpness and performance to the f4 IS. That extra 100 mm is extremely useful. I bought mine used - hence my question about your budget. They can be found for around the same price as the Tamron 70-200 VC. And if you're thinking of spending in the region of $1000, then a used 100-400 L isn't out of the question either.


Gear: Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24 f/4, Canon 24-105L f4, Canon 70-300L, Canon 60 macro f/2.8, Speedlite 580 EXII, 2x AB800

Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chriso777
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
9 posts
Joined Nov 2013
     
Dec 01, 2013 17:40 as a reply to  @ ceegee's post |  #15

Yeah. $1000 is my cap, and under $900 would make me much more comfortable. Where on Earth can you find a 100-400 L for 1k?! Same with the 70-300 L. I'd love that guy, but I couldn't find it under $1000. Plus, its variable 4-5.6 aperture kinda bugs me. Yeah, I know you can't find anything over 200mm with an aperture wider than f4, but that's a huge hunk of cash for f4-5.6. But please, do share where I can get prices like that. Ebay and craigslist have failed me.




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

3,353 views & 0 likes for this thread
Good 70-200 vs. 70-300
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 zsolt79
1369 guests, 315 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.