Am I about to do something silly: Swap EF70-200L IS for EF 70-300L IS

CrashEd

CrashEd

Messages
948
Name
Ed
Edit My Images
No
I recently came back from a short trip abroad and realised that I could do with a slightly longer and more convenient lens than my current EF 70-200L IS + EF 1.4x TC combo.

I normally travel with a 17-40L, 24-105L IS and the aforementioned 70-200 L IS + TC, however I find it a bit a of a pain setting it up with the TC when I need to switch to a longer lens for those shots that require a quick lens change (wild life etc). When I'm travelling I tend to take a mixture of city shots and wildlife shots. I also find the 70-200L IS + TC a bit intimidating (for want of a better work) when photographing people in cities.

The reviews for the 70-300L IS look pretty promising, and I like that that it is more compact (means I can take more junk in my rucksack - or another lens perhaps?). It is however heavier. I haven't done a side-by-side comparison with my 70-200L IS and the TC. I don't tend to use the TC with any other lens, so I'd be getting rid of that as well.

I've had two 70-200L IS lenses now, and they are superb. Should I be getting rid of it?? If I did, it would mean that I could buy a 70-200L 2.8f IS further down the line :D

Has anyone got any experience of this lens? Should I stick with what I have? I'm I going nuts??
 
Anyone got any experience with the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM?
 
zeb said:
Do you mean the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens as there seems to be a big price difference for the L Lens for a swap?

If it is the none L, I have one which I would swap I just got a 100-400mm so I don’t need the 300mm reach
Click to expand...

No, I think Ed is looking at the new 70-300 L lens

There was someone on here, I'm sure, posted a review of the new 70-300L

If can't find it, you could always PM Stewart from Lensforhire on here, as I'm pretty sure he has them to hire and maybe able to give you some feeback.
 
Last edited:
zeb said:
should put my reading glasses on:bonk:
Click to expand...

I did about 20 mins ago as I had to read the inital post twice just to make sure he was thinking about the new 70-300 L, otherwise I think my answer would have been YES :lol:
 
Last edited:
Hehe, no worries zeb:)

I think there were liberal uses of the letter L - apologies if it was unclear! :thumbs:

Yeah, it would be great to hear of someone else's experiences on here. It's all very well reading the reviews, but it nicer to hear it from folk first hand!

Will have a scout around for that review. Hopefully some other users will chime in, if not I'll contact Stewart.
 
Last edited:
I've not used the new 70-300 but from what you've described if the IQ is good it sounds like it would be an excellent idea for you, let us know how you get on!
 
Thanks mate, will do.

The only thing that worries me about this lens is the weight. The size is perfect, and not much bigger than my 24-105L (retracted). It's wider in girth though, but i'm not too worried about that. Think I'll go and take a look at one tomorrow.

I've heard the IQ is very good, even at 300mm.
 
there is no substitute for speed/wider aperture. I use a 70-200 2.8 w/wo TC and the IQ & usability, in this counties typically low light, blows my 100-400 4.0-5.6. For most practical shots a faster lens does wonders. I hate to say it and would not wanted to have heard it before being an owner but now that I have a 2.8f I crave fast lenses. I'm on a cropped body so the 70-200 with 1.4 TC is = 400 and still fast than the 100-400 (160-640) You've not specified what you are shooting so I may be off the mark but throwing in for what it's worth.
 
Indeed, if I could afford a faster lens such as the 70-200L f2.8, then I'd probably be going for that, however it is big and heavy and not quite the kind of thing I'm after.

As stated previously, I'm after a lens that is simple, quick to use and compact enough to take travelling. It will mainly be used for wildlife (not particularly fast moving, but certainly not static) and people/city shots.

I think someone summed it up in a similar thread that Ive just noticed:

Specs
- Range: The extra 100mm in the 70-300 would certainly be useful. A 1.4x would get the 70-200 most of the way but...
- Aperture: 1.4x would give 70-200 f/5.6 across whole range. But at 200mm with no extender the 70-200 would have a larger max aperture.
Click to expand...

Peter's comment also is what makes me lean towards the 70-300L:

My thought is that if you're planning to use it primarily with the extender you should go for the 70-300... A simpler light path and the ability to shoot at 70mm without swapping out the TC.
Click to expand...
 
I certainly don't think you'd be doing anything daft, but TBH I think it's probably six of one and half dozen of the other. Pretty marginal differences here and there. Personal at the end of the day.

I have the 70-200L 4 IS and extender, but have only played with the 70-300L. I have to say it's a seriously nice lens though, and by all accounts optically top drawer. I thought about swapping like you, but at the end of the day it was a lot of hassle and extra cost, and I wasn't sure what the net gain would be! If I was buying from scratch again, I'd probably get the 70-300L. Or maybe the 70-200L MkII. Or maybe just dither a bit longer :lol:

One thing I will say though, is it's hardly a discrete lens. It's big and fat and has a long sticky-out white bit at 300mm!
 
Hehe, thanks Hoppy. Good food for thought as always.

I read the review on 'The Digital Picture' website today and I think they summed up the options nicely.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

This inspired me to go and have a look at one in the flesh. All in all it is a seriously nice lens. It felt heavy at first on my 7D, but I soon got used to it. I think it os only ~75g heavier than my 70-200L IS with the TC. Size-wise it is nice and quite compact. My only gripe is the zoom ring which is swapped with the focus ring. Again, I'm sure i'd get used to it.

Arrrgh! Can't decide :(
 
edster said:
Arrrgh! Can't decide :(
Click to expand...

well hurry up and decide ;):D it is something i have wondered about, and i had read that review only last night, if it took a convertor then i would probably be going for it more seriously than just thinking.
suppose a 12mm extension tube would allow a convertor to physically fit :shrug:
 
Hahaha, I wish I could! It's not that easy! ;) :)
 
RKC said:
well hurry up and decide ;):D it is something i have wondered about, and i had read that review only last night, if it took a convertor then i would probably be going for it more seriously than just thinking.
suppose a 12mm extension tube would allow a convertor to physically fit :shrug:
Click to expand...

Could you use a Kenko TC instead? I think they fit lenses that the Canon TC's don't?
 
incapete said:
Could you use a Kenko TC instead? I think they fit lenses that the Canon TC's don't?
Click to expand...

:shrug: do not know the answer to that one
 
DucDuc said:
there is no substitute for speed/wider aperture. I use a 70-200 2.8 w/wo TC and the IQ & usability, in this counties typically low light, blows my 100-400 4.0-5.6. For most practical shots a faster lens does wonders. I hate to say it and would not wanted to have heard it before being an owner but now that I have a 2.8f I crave fast lenses. I'm on a cropped body so the 70-200 with 1.4 TC is = 400 and still fast than the 100-400 (160-640) You've not specified what you are shooting so I may be off the mark but throwing in for what it's worth.
Click to expand...

400 and 640 are not the same.....

You can't beat mm :-)
 
incapete said:
Could you use a Kenko TC instead? I think they fit lenses that the Canon TC's don't?
Click to expand...

I'm almost certain that the highly rated Kenko Pro 300 1.4x telecon will fit. But I can't really think that you'd want to, dropping to f/8 and losing AF.

For that extra bit of reach, I would rather crop my way out of it on an occasional basis, but get the 100-400L in the first place if it's likely to be a regular thing. Or the 70-200L 2.8 Mk2 takes a 2x extender pretty well - with the new Mk3 extender it's very close in performance to the 100-400L, which makes a very compelling combo as it retains AF. See the test images on www.the-digital-picture.com
 
Last edited:
Ok, I seem to be leaning towards the 70-300L. Weighing it up, it seems to fit my current needs better than what I currently have. I'm going to have another look at one tonight and take my 70-200 & TC along to compare. Then I'll decide (I hope ;)).

This route will allow me to same up for the 70-200L IS f2.8 II in the future, which will be a much better lens for when I'm not travelling.

70-300L pros and cons:

Pros:
- Excellent IQ
- Has the length I need
- Fast AF (at least the one I tried did)
- Excellent 4-stop IS
- Compact size
- Weather sealed

Cons:
- Zoom and focus ring swapped :bang:
- Slower at equivalent length (compared to my current setup w/o TC)
- No tripod ring (not too bothered by this though)
- Hassle of selling my old gear and cost of buying new

Any others?
 
Last edited:
Freck5 said:
Hi there, im probably overdue on this post.

What lens did you choose?

Did you ever consider the Canon EF - Telephoto zoom lens - 70 mm - 300 mm - f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-Telephoto-zoom-4-5-5 6/dp/B0001G8VFO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318701034&sr=8-1
Click to expand...

Had one of those. It's not as bad as you'll read in some places, but it's not great and is expensive. It closes down very short, but heavy. Much better choices out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top