Talk me out of the 70-300mm L IS

Been debating this lens vs. the 70-200 F2.8L IS II but the latter is just a little bit too pricey and too huge for me at the moment for the limited telephoto use I take advantage of. However, the 70-200 F4 IS obviously remains a cheaper competitor.

70-300 L IS:

Pros:
More reach
Smaller(when lens retracted)

Cons:
Pricey
Not AS sharp
Slower lens

Looking at reviews, the 70-300L holds its own in sharpness, at least on crop. It is definitely better at 280mm than the 70-200mm F4 with a 1.4x teleconverter.

When looking at the aperture, the 70-300 is only a half a stop or so slower at 200mm. This is the biggest problem in my book. Yes, you save a bit of money but for giving up a half a stop at 200mm you gain quite a bit of reach.

What says the POTN community?

P.S. I tried the 70-300 Tamron, it didn't meet my, admittedly high, expectations.

If you were considering the canon 70-200 2.8, why not consider the sigma 70-200 OS? Cheapest of all your options besides the tamron 70-300, and has great IQ.

What are you planning to use it for though? Personally I'd get the 70-300L if I had the money, as its a great length for a "general purpose" telephoto, its very sharp, and the aperture doesn't matter hugely as I don't shoot sports, but I can't afford it.

Find a used Sigma 100-300 f4, 1/2 the price..

Don't mean to sound pedantic, but the 70-300L is 2/3 stop slower(f/5) at 200, than the 70-200 4L. Not huge, but could take you from blur to enough shutter-speed in some circumstances.

Edit: If you throw a 1.4x TC on it, the 70-200 is slower at all FLs below ~230mm

I had the 70-200 F4 is, but need more reach. So I switch and don't regret it. The lens is nearly as sharp as the 70-200 and for me more usable. So sorry, can't talk you out...

On my 5DII, up to ISO 3200 is no problem for me, so F5.6 is still ok.

Have a look at this link.
http://dancarrphotogra​phy.com …review-vs-70-200-f4-l-is/

I was considering the 70-300 IS also, but decided to go with the 70-200 f/4 IS. Yes it's shorter, but most ppl say that it loses very little if any sharpness on a 1.4x extender. What finally convinced me aginst getting the 70-300 is that I just don't like how it sticks out as you zoom. Reminds me of my el cheapo 55-250 or, to use a more colorful description, a horse's youknowhat when he's daydreaming while chewing his oats.

akadmon wrote in post #12456641
Reminds me of my el cheapo 55-250

Doesn't the 70-200 f4 IS's buid quality remind you more of the 55-250 than the 70-300's extending front?

What's wrong with a 70-200mm f2.8 IS version I? Add a 1.4x teleconverter and you are set and have a much more versatile lens setup.

I just received a 70-300L to replace my 70-200L IS f/4 travel lens. I took it out yesterday on the 7D and shot some obligatory duck pictures and was quite pleased with the results. I was prepared to use my 1.4x TC with the 70-200 when longer range was needed ... but I find I never do it, usually because I simply don't have the time to fiddle with mounting it quickly before the photo-op gets away (often wildlife). Being able to just zoom in a little closer when needed is great!

BTW - I also had planned to use a 2x TC on my 70-200 MII f/2.8 in order to eliminate my large 100-400L, but that too never seems to happen. Thus I still have and use the 100-400, but they are both larger than I want to travel with and so use them when I am around home.

So ... no, I can't talk you out of the 70-300L purchase!

-howard

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I have been eyeing this lens too but I really like my 2.8 non IS and I would imagine the IS version is even better so if I was buying today, considering the price off each lens I would opt for the 2.8 IS. I am thinking of getting a Tamron 70-300 as a travel lens and just keeping my 70-200.

The tamron seems to get good reviews and its under $500 ( smaller, lighter and black )

http://www.photozone.d​e …-tamron70300f456vceosap​sc

I don't even understand the purpose of this lens. 100-400L needs a serious upgrade and they come out with this when's there are already two current versions. Like to see how it does against the DO but I can't imagine the price difference is reasonable.

In that price range I'd look long and hard at the 70-200 f/2.8 without IS... If you really need the extra range, the 100-400 is a great lens.

_aravena wrote in post #12457957
I don't even understand the purpose of this lens. 100-400L needs a serious upgrade and they come out with this when's there are already two current versions. Like to see how it does against the DO but I can't imagine the price difference is reasonable.

I have owned a 70-300 DO for many years, but just recently sold it in order to help with the purchase of the 70-300 L lens and another which I am still working towards.

I did like the DO lens, although image quality wasn't its strongest point, especially at the "new" price point. I think it is a great lens at the "used" price it is selling at. The DO was my travel lens, specifically because of the short physical length which allowed inconspicuous street shooting, and because I was able to get it in to stadiums and other venues where "professional cameras" were not allowed, usually by the staff simply measuring the physical length of the lens.

The DO lens seems to require additional considerations and skills to get the most out of it, but it is a very capable lens and can produce excellent images. However, my initial impressions with the new 70-300 L lens are well exceeding those of the DO lens and without some of the precautions when taking or processing the images. I have never owned the original non-L 70-300 (having been burned by the 75-300), so can't compare that model.

-howard

shedberg wrote in post #12457991
In that price range I'd look long and hard at the 70-200 f/2.8 without IS... If you really need the extra range, the 100-400 is a great lens.

Yes, those are excellent choices too, but they are considerably larger than the 70-300 L lens. If size is an issue, such as for travel, I find I don't take the larger lenses unless the specific purpose of the trip is for photography opportunities. I will admit I am slightly worried about the weight of this lens when walking about all day with it in the bag (the 70-200 f/4 is much lighter), so I will have to see how that plays out for me.

-howard

hfgarris wrote in post #12458082
Yes, those are excellent choices too, but they are considerably larger than the 70-300 L lens. If size is an issue, such as for travel, I find I don't take the larger lenses unless the specific purpose of the trip is for photography opportunities. I will admit I am slightly worried about the weight of this lens when walking about all day with it in the bag (the 70-200 f/4 is much lighter), so I will have to see how that plays out for me.

-howard

Excellent point.