Canon 70 - 200mm f4.0 or 70 - 300mm f4.0-5.6

M

MartynK

Opting Out.
Messages
5,527
Name
Martyn
Edit My Images
No
My experience with Canon lenses is limited, and I'd like to know what others think of these two compared with each other. There doesn't seem to be enough difference in price to matter.

I'm tempted by the "L", but I can't afford the IS version. The 70 - 300mm is 100mm longer and has IS, but I can't say I'm very impressed by the build quality, the way it extends and the rotating front ring. Unfortunately none of the dealers near me will let you try lenses outside, or rent, so I can't do a direct comparison.

Main purposes are travel and some nature/wildlife photography. Both lenses are a bit too short for birds and small animals (the 70 - 300 has an advantage here) and the 30D doesn't let you crop too savagely, but I'll get something longer eventually.

Thanks everyone.

I'll get my wife to buy the one I decide on in the UK. If you think the UK is expensive, check out South African prices!
 
I was musing the same thoughts, but from what I have read and seen on test sites the 70/300 goes very soft over 200mm to the point in my view of being useless. So if you are comparing a true 70/200 f4 (L) against a 70/200(30) then the 'smaller' lens wins hands down for me, non rotating, extending etc being just 2 of the items to sway me.

Matt
 
"...70/300 goes very soft over 200mm to the point in my view of being useless."

I've never found that. I have no complaints about IQ and the IS seems to be good but you don't get full time manual override and all in all it seems to be a rather clunky thing perhaps a design generation behind newer lenses. The rotating front element doesn't bother me too much as I've never attempted to attach anything to it.
 
woof woof said:
"...70/300 goes very soft over 200mm to the point in my view of being useless."

I've never found that. I have no complaints about IQ and the IS seems to be good but you don't get full time manual override and all in all it seems to be a rather clunky thing perhaps a design generation behind newer lenses. The rotating front element doesn't bother me too much as I've never attempted to attach anything to it.
Click to expand...

Its a relative term, which is why I added "in my view". I am sure there are many who will be happy with it, personally I wouldnt but I'm honestly glad you are. Actually that sounds really condescending, sorry, it wasnt meant to be. :)
Matt
 
I don't remember reading a particularly bad review of the 70-300mm. I think you're the first I've read saying that it's unusable beyond 200mm. I did think about posting examples but you can only really tell so much from stuff on the net...plus I'm at work and haven't got any examples....

I suppose that as usual the best way to find out is to try one.
 
I have not heard this complaint of the 70-300 either. I have a 75-300 and that definately gets soft beyond 200 or so.
 
According to that the 70-200 is much better, even with a 1.4tc attached. Thats made up my mind!
 
Thanks everyone. Sorry I haven't responded before, but my email access is limited at the moment.

Good points for both lenses, but I think I'm to go for the 70 - 200mm. I haven't seen any real criticism of it, but the 70 - 300mm does seem to get a slightly mixed reception. I'll sacrifice the extra 100mm because I'm not sure it will really make that much difference. I probably need to look at a 100 - 400mm, or a 400mm prime in the future, but not right now. I just can't afford it without using credit, and I'm not keen on carrying debt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top