Nikon 70-300 vs Canon ?

After watching a class on Scott Kelby all they talked about was how great the Nikon 70-300 was on a full frame for $500.00. The class was on city shots and not bringing attention to you or the camera. My white 70-200 definitely stands out. I have had plans to get the 24-105 for my walk around. Any suggestion for a Ef lens comparable to the NIkon?

Canon's 70-300? Not known for it's sharpness. I would say the 55-250 IS if you used a crop. Maybe get a lenscoat for the 70-200mm

Just to clarify one thing:

A DSLR WITH AN AVERAGE LENS WILL BRING ATTENTION TO YOU. LOTS OF IT. THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

White can make it worse, but seriously, when you get in someone's sight, you get attention.

hsmoscout wrote in post #10555802
Canon's 70-300? Not known for it's sharpness. I would say the 55-250 IS if you used a crop. Maybe get a lenscoat for the 70-200mm

in my experience the 70-300mm is sharper than 55-250 by a hair

the canon lens looks to be about the same size as the nikon version

Writing as someone who actually purchased and has used a Canon 70-300mm IS USM lens for several years: it's hard to find any fault with the unit in actual use at real events.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

hsmoscout wrote in post #10555802
Canon's 70-300? Not known for it's sharpness. I would say the 55-250 IS if you used a crop. Maybe get a lenscoat for the 70-200mm

There you go again... many reviews online state that the 70-300mm is sharper than the 55-250mm at comparable lengths. Just check the comparison shots on the-digital-picture---there's no denying it!

If you're speaking from experience, I would venture a guess that you got a soft copy.

Right here is your comparison. Scroll down and mouse-over. The 70-300mm is strikingly sharper. It's not as big a leap as the 70-200mm f/4, but the 70-300 has IS for the same price (and yes, the 70-200 in the comparison is the IS, not the f/4 non-IS).

DreDaze wrote in post #10555861
in my experience the 70-300mm is sharper than 55-250 by a hair

the canon lens looks to be about the same size as the nikon version

^^^ what he said. Exact same perceived results with both lens. The 70-300 is well-worth the investment over the 55-250

I own a Nikon 70-300 mm VR and it's excellent on a DX-format sensor. I haven't used the Canon equivalent for comparison, but the reviews I read at the time of purchase gave the Nikon the edge.

MOkoFOko wrote in post #10556140
There you go again... many reviews online state that the 70-300mm is sharper than the 55-250mm at comparable lengths. Just check the comparison shots on the-digital-picture---there's no denying it!

If you're speaking from experience, I would venture a guess that you got a soft copy.

Right here is your comparison. Scroll down and mouse-over. The 70-300mm is strikingly sharper. It's not as big a leap as the 70-200mm f/4, but the 70-300 has IS for the same price (and yes, the 70-200 in the comparison is the IS, not the f/4 non-IS).

^^^ what he said. Exact same perceived results with both lens. The 70-300 is well-worth the investment over the 55-250

I wouldn't say it is worth the investment over the 55-250, if I had one, I wouldn't really bother with the other. However, on full frame you don't much much of a choice.

Afield wrote in post #10556151
I own a Nikon 70-300 mm VR and it's excellent on a DX-format sensor. I haven't used the Canon equivalent for comparison, but the reviews I read at the time of purchase gave the Nikon the edge.

Honestly, the point seems moot to me--incompatible systems, so all you can do is try the 70-300mm to see if it's for you!

The Canon 70-300mm definitely has a bit of a cult following though--way too many people fail to appreciate it, given that the mag-body 70-200mm f/4 is the same price.

themadman wrote in post #10556157
I wouldn't say it is worth the investment over the 55-250, if I had one, I wouldn't really bother with the other. However, on full frame you don't much much of a choice.

If you're on a crop and have no intention of ever adding a teleconverter... you're right. However, plug in a 1.4x TC (Kenko pro300 dg in particular) and you'll end up with very good results throughout the range--with working AF. Expandability is worth a lot to many people.

sorry to be off topic, but your right about that. for some reason a lot of folks comment on the size of a dslr, no matter what lens you have on em. case in point was last weekend. i had been shooting skydivers landing with a "small" combo of a D90 and a 35mm f/1.8 and still got comments about the size of the whole thing

jsboutin wrote in post #10555812
Just to clarify one thing:

A DSLR WITH AN AVERAGE LENS WILL BRING ATTENTION TO YOU. LOTS OF IT. THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

White can make it worse, but seriously, when you get in someone's sight, you get attention.

jsboutin wrote in post #10555812
Just to clarify one thing:

A DSLR WITH AN AVERAGE LENS WILL BRING ATTENTION TO YOU. LOTS OF IT. THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

White can make it worse, but seriously, when you get in someone's sight, you get attention.

I'm afraid I did not word it correctly. Yes you will get caught from time to time. But the point I got from the video was take the hood off, its ok to look like you arent a "pro" and less intimidating. They also said if people are into what ever they are doing they will never see you. It seems to me one could get better street shots with a black lens with further reach than my 70-200 with hood and wanted to know if Canon had a comparable lens to the Nikon. As far as the white lens drawing attention, you have one, done any parades? People cross the street so you can shoot them. Thanks for your input.

J.David wrote in post #10555789
After watching a class on Scott Kelby all they talked about was how great the Nikon 70-300 was on a full frame for $500.00. The class was on city shots and not bringing attention to you or the camera. My white 70-200 definitely stands out. I have had plans to get the 24-105 for my walk around. Any suggestion for a Ef lens comparable to the NIkon?

The Nikon is a better lens in terms of IQ and build than the equivelent Canon - have owned 2x Nikon and 1x Canon. The 70-200mm L is about the same as the Nikon. The 70-200 4.0 IS L is a bit better IMO. Again. owned these lenses. As to which lens to use for street shooting the larger lenses are just not where it's at and, to be honest, I have never encountered a 'serious' street shooter using long lenses. You will be less noticiable with a small lens shooting up closer. A 35mm 2.0 on FF or 24mm 2.8 on crop is a nice choice and neither that pricey. If you want a bit longer then try a 50mm. How you move and plan your shot has more impact on whether you're noticiable, but sticking a big white lens on your camera will not help whatever you do.

I'm a fan of the Canon 70-300IS too. It's small, light and produces sharp images. The only things I don't like about it are the front element rotates and the colors sometimes need enhancement during PP. I used it along with a 135L and a 200L yesterday at a horse show and you could tell quite a difference in the colors of the 70-300 and the "L"s straight from the camera - not much after PP. It's a great vacation lens and I use it quite a bit for a "walk around" lens.

Here's a pic from yesterday's show taken with the 70-300.