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 27 Feb 2013 (Wednesday) 04:41
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS vs Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS for landscape/travel photo?

 
vsocks
Member
Avatar
172 posts
Joined Dec 2012
Location: Belgium, WI
     
Feb 28, 2013 19:08 |  #16

CJSmith wrote in post #15657048 (external link)
I sold my 70-200 II to get the 70-300L. It's awesome for landscape stuff. I've also owned the 70-200 f4 IS. I think the big advantage besides 300mm is that the 70-300L is much shorter when packed. Here is my "review" http://outofchicago.co​m/canon-70-300l-review/ (external link)

I own the 70-200 2.8 II and find it hard to imagine the 70-300 could compare....


Canon 6D, 70D, Rokinon 14mm, 17-40 F4L, Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4 T* ZE, 50 f1.8, 85 f/1.8, Canon 24-105 F/4L, 70-200 2.8L IS II, Tamron 150-600 VC, Speedlight 430EX II, 12mm Extension Tube, Canon 1.4X & 2.0X iii Converters

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Christina.DazzleByDesign
Goldmember
Avatar
1,973 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Mar 2012
     
Feb 28, 2013 19:32 |  #17

vsocks wrote in post #15662847 (external link)
I own the 70-200 2.8 II and find it hard to imagine the 70-300 could compare....

Sold my 70-200 f/2.8 II - I had doubts too, until I rented the 70-300L when considering what to buy and was blown away by it. Its easy to imagine something until you actually try it. It doesn't do f/2.8, but I don't need it to. IQ wise, they are equals. AF speed wise, equals. The IS - I have to say that I find the 70-300L's to be better - but maybe thats because its being really used at 300mm and it is fantastic.


5D3 | 7D | 85L II | 70-300L | 24-105L | Nifty Fifty | 600EX-RT_______________
| Facebook (external link) | Website (external link) | Gear List |Flickr (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lsquare
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,933 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
     
Feb 28, 2013 20:05 |  #18

ed rader wrote in post #15662273 (external link)
camera?

I'm thinking of getting a Canon 6D.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pdrober2
Goldmember
Avatar
2,318 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Durham, NC
     
Feb 28, 2013 23:08 |  #19

vsocks wrote in post #15662847 (external link)
I own the 70-200 2.8 II and find it hard to imagine the 70-300 could compare....

i owned both at the same time. each is equally amazing but different. its variable aperture and slower, but very sharp wide open all the way to 300mm. i later sold it to free up money, but i have some regrets. dont get me wrong, the 70-200 is epic and necessary for shooting in low light. however, the 70-300 is tough to beat in good light.


Fujifilm X-T1 | 23 | 27 | 56 | 90 | 55-200
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dochollidayda
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2075
Joined Aug 2012
     
Mar 01, 2013 17:40 |  #20

70-300 is an incredible lens and has amazing IQ/range for a 2 lens setup. I don't think there's anything that can touch its versatility. I have used it and was blown away by it, however I could not bring myself to part with F4L IS's fixed aperture, I like to stop down to F/5.6 (its incredibly sharp at that) and leave it that throughout the zoom range AND its non-extending zoom. I am a bit careless :s when focused on my shot and don't always remember when the zoom is extended (damn you 15-85), lastly, I don't think Canon has another lens that is consistently as sharp as the F4L IS & F2.8 MKII.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=2 (external link)

Heh, sorry I am a pixel peeper.
Like others have said, it really depends on you as to what do you value most.
Range and versatility: 70-300L
Fixed aperture and consistent sharpness throughout the range: F4L IS


flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,927 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6000
Joined Sep 2007
     
Mar 01, 2013 19:25 |  #21

dochollidayda wrote in post #15666285 (external link)
70-300 is an incredible lens and has amazing IQ/range for a 2 lens setup. I don't think there's anything that can touch its versatility. I have used it and was blown away by it, however I could not bring myself to part with F4L IS's fixed aperture, I like to stop down to F/5.6 (its incredibly sharp at that) and leave it that throughout the zoom range AND its non-extending zoom. I am a bit careless :s when focused on my shot and don't always remember when the zoom is extended (damn you 15-85), lastly, I don't think Canon has another lens that is consistently as sharp as the F4L IS & F2.8 MKII.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=2 (external link)

Heh, sorry I am a pixel peeper.
Like others have said, it really depends on you as to what do you value most.
Range and versatility: 70-300L
Fixed aperture and consistent sharpness throughout the range: F4L IS

there is like little to do difference in sharpness between the two... I bet if you shot a landscape scene @200mm, and compared 100% crops, you would not be able to tell the difference.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bianchi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,934 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6331
Joined Jan 2010
Location: USA
     
Mar 02, 2013 00:28 |  #22

pdrober2 wrote in post #15663550 (external link)
i owned both at the same time. each is equally amazing but different. its variable aperture and slower, but very sharp wide open all the way to 300mm. i later sold it to free up money, but i have some regrets. dont get me wrong, the 70-200 is epic and necessary for shooting in low light. however, the 70-300 is tough to beat in good light.

I have the 70-200 II and did a loan from CPS for the 70-300lis, and you hit it on the head "the 70-300 is tough to beat in good light" key word "good light"


My Gear flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
marfot
Hatchling
6 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Poland
     
Mar 03, 2013 01:07 as a reply to  @ Bianchi's post |  #23

I exchanged may 70-200/4LIS on 70-300 LIS when, I went full frame.
I'm fully satisfied with this lens end its long end is amazing.
During my trip to Tuscany, where the landscape is essential, I made 30% of my shots using the focal range 200-300 mm (I've just checked it using Bridge filter :)).


5DII, C16-35/4L IS, C35/2IS, C70-300L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Mar 03, 2013 02:15 |  #24

lsquare wrote in post #15656962 (external link)
I was thinking of potentially pairing either of these lenses with a Canon 24-70mm f/4 L IS lens. Naturally I'd be tempted to go with the 70-200mm lens. It's relatively light (owned one a few years ago). The 70-300mm lens is heavier, but it have a greater reach. Let's take cost out of the equation. If you guys were to go on a 1-2 month trip, which lens will you go with? How often is 200-300mm is used for landscape and travel photography? I wouldn't mind the extra reach, but the weight is more of a concern to me than cost. Opinions?

I'd go 70-300L, in fact I sold my 70-200 f/4 IS.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Mar 03, 2013 02:27 |  #25

Charlie wrote in post #15666627 (external link)
there is like little to do difference in sharpness between the two... I bet if you shot a landscape scene @200mm, and compared 100% crops, you would not be able to tell the difference.

With my copies the 70-300L (compared to the f/4 IS) was, each set to widest aperture that the 70-300L can hit and compared center frame:
sharper at 70mm but with more CA
about the same in all regards at 100mm
less sharp at 135mm
almost as sharp at 165mm
a bit sharper at 200mm with a bit less CA
definitely sharper 201-280mm compared to the other plus 1.4x TC III (also 50% faster AF than that combo)

AF speed was about the same with both lenses bare, with TC on the f/4 IS that became 50% slower, although with an extension tube on the f/4 IS still focused and the 70-300L didn't really focus any more. AF precision may have been a bit better with the 70-300L.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lsquare
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,933 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2008
     
Mar 03, 2013 07:02 |  #26

For those that have the 70-300mm L lens, can you please do me a small favour? Can you take a picture at 70mm, 200mm, and 300mm for me? I think this will really help me gauge whether the extra 100mm will be worth it or not.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mk1Racer
Goldmember
Avatar
1,735 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Flagtown, NJ
     
Mar 03, 2013 07:53 |  #27

Can anyone comment (from real-world experience) on IQ with a 70-300L vs. a 70-200 f/2.8 IS + 1.4x TC?

I still don't know why Canon doesn't put the R&D effort into a 70-300 f/4L IS, but spent all that effort on the 200-400 f/4L + 1.4xTC unicorn. If a 70-300 f/4-5.6L is $1400 (Amazon), I would think the constant f/4 version would be $3500-$4000. Granted, that's a lot of coin, but I think that would be an amazing lens.


7D, BG-E7, BGE2x2 (both FS), 17-55 f/2.8 IS, 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS (FS), 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mk I, 70-300 f/4-5.6L, 550EX, Kenko Pro300 1.4xTC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Submariner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,028 posts
Likes: 47
Joined May 2012
Location: London
     
Mar 03, 2013 09:59 as a reply to  @ Mk1Racer's post |  #28

Not got the 70-200 but I love my 70-300L f4-5.6
Pros:-
Brilliant IQ for the money, even does lovely portraits
Fast AF, even in low light, super compact , well built - like a tank, nice extra reach on 7D as going FF becomes even more important.
Perfect walkabout on a ff.

Cons
Miffed no tripod ring, more miffed how expensive it was £170, found one for £119!
Would have liked a hard case, but has a nice soft bag.
Being white not too discreet for a walk about - not really a problem.

Best camera item I have even bought in VFM terms.


Canon EOS 5DS R, Canon EF 70-200 F2.8 L Mk II IS USM, Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS USM, EF 40mm F2.8 STM , RC6 Remote. Canon STE-3 Radio Flash Controller, Canon 600 EX RT x4 , YN 560 MkII x2 ; Bowens GM500PRO x4 , Bowens Remote Control. Bowens Pulsar TX, RX Radio Transmitter and Reciever Cards. Bowens Constant 530 Streamlights 600w x 4 Sold EOS 5D Mk III, 7D, EF 50mm F1.8, 430 EX Mk II, Bowens GM500Rs x4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
g3org3y
Senior Member
Avatar
553 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
Mar 03, 2013 10:21 as a reply to  @ Submariner's post |  #29

Interesting question, thanks for posting.

I've been using a 70-200 f/4 non IS for a number of year for street shots/general walk around. Absolute revelation for not a huge amount of cash (in the scheme of things) but I think I need to move on. This 70-300L IS seems brilliant.

At 70mm, max aperture is 4. At 300mm, max aperture is 5.6. For those who own one, can you tell me what is the maximum focal length at one is able to maintain the f/4 aperture?


EOS 400D, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 17 -50, Nifty Fifty f/1.8, Canon 100 f/2, 70-200L f/4, Speedlite 430EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,608 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 500
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
Mar 03, 2013 10:41 |  #30

I also sold my 70-200 2.8 IS II when I got the 70-300L. I would not even consider the 70-200 F4 since the 300 is shorter when packed with an extra 100mm of reach. IMO the image quality is very similar to the 2.8 IS II at similar apertures. The lens balances very well and does not seem heavy at all to me.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

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

10,060 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L IS vs Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS for landscape/travel photo?
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 CoachC
2532 guests, 320 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.