Canon 70-300 IS compared to the 300 f/4

Amp34

Amp34

Messages
2,859
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a 300 f/4 and a rarely used 75-300 IS.

I love the 300 f/4 and think it's a brilliant lens, it's just a bit too big for what I want to use it for at the moment. I also have the 75-300 IS and it's much better due to it's size, but worse in almost every other way...

Now i'm thinking how much difference is there in IQ and AF speed between the 300 f/4 (non IS) and the 70-300? I know it's a stop slower but if the IQ and AF speed are similar at 300mm then I think I may sell the 300 f/4 and 75-300 IS and get the 70-300 just for the portability (and some extra cash)...

Don't want to sell the 300 f/4 but it makes sense too...:(
 
I had a 70-300 and I lurrrrvvveeded it! Sadly it had to be sold to make way for a 70-200 instead. But I didn't come from an L lens, so your experience might be different. This was a pretty heavy crop (not 100%, but maybe 50% on a truly dreadful day).

The 70-300 IS is an amazing lens, but I'd be worried about stepping down in quality. It's sometimes referred to as a 'hidden L' lens, but while that's great for everyone else, coming from a REAL L lens and you might not like it as much.

Most jessops have one in the display cabinet, how about going along with your camera and giving it a go?

Chris
 
swag72 said:
Do you really want the 300mm end? If not, perhaps a 70-200/4 may fit the bill.
Click to expand...

Just what I was going to suggest.

I had the 70-300 IS USM and whilst it was fairly decent for the price it is not even close to the 70-200 f/4L in terms of sharpness and colour.

You would have a gap between 200-300mm however, if you added a 1.4x teleconverter that would get you a little extra reach at f/5.6 with hardly any loss of quality - plus you could use it on the 300 too...
 
chris321 said:
I had a 70-300 and I lurrrrvvveeded it! Sadly it had to be sold to make way for a 70-200 instead. But I didn't come from an L lens, so your experience might be different. This was a pretty heavy crop (not 100%, but maybe 50% on a truly dreadful day).

The 70-300 IS is an amazing lens, but I'd be worried about stepping down in quality. It's sometimes referred to as a 'hidden L' lens, but while that's great for everyone else, coming from a REAL L lens and you might not like it as much.

Most jessops have one in the display cabinet, how about going along with your camera and giving it a go?

Chris
Click to expand...

Yeah, i've heard it being called a hidden L, which is one of the reasons i'm considering it, but like you said actually coming from a 300mm L prime it may be a whole different story. The 75-300 I find is a brilliant lens up to around 200mm, then it trails off massively. Apparently the 70-300 is a lot better at the long end which in theory should make it pretty good...

swag72 said:
Do you really want the 300mm end? If not, perhaps a 70-200/4 may fit the bill.
Click to expand...

Yes TBH, I often find 300mm isn't long enough and I had planned on getting a 70-200 and 1.4x TC in the future to complement it, however not to replace it.

The reason i'm considering it is because at the moment I use the 75-300 IS as my "travelling" telephoto (for foreign holidays and days I'm not going out to shoot) and the 300 f/4 as the main telephoto for times I'm going out to actually shoot first and foremost (or on holiday when I anticipate using 300mm a lot). Problem is I'm likely to be going away for a month or two this summer and the size and weight of the 300 f/4 is a pain, I don't want to take the 75-300 because it is so poor at the long end. Also replacing both the 75-300 and 300 f/4 should make me a couple of hundred to go towards the trip... That's why the 70-200 is out really. :)
 
I found the IQ on the 70-300 trailed off after 200mm too and was obviously worse at 300mm.

There is a lack of sharpness in the corners too, although if you have a crop body this might not affect you.

I would recommend you try one out as personally I only used it a couple of times and wasn't happy with the results, although perhaps I had a bad copy. It will never be able to match the 300 f/4 even stopped down so I wouldn't be looking to replace both of your lenses for it.


This review might be worth reading if you haven't already... :)
 
I have a 70-300 IS and a 70 -200 F4 IS my flickr has examples from both lenses

my flickr

The new ones in the 70-200 set are obviously with the new lens, the deer and other bushypark / SA wildlife ones are with the 300.

I found the 300 very nice up to about 275 the last bit is where the softness creeps in
 
martyp said:
I found the IQ on the 70-300 trailed off after 200mm too and was obviously worse at 300mm... It will never be able to match the 300 f/4 even stopped down so I wouldn't be looking to replace both of your lenses for it.
Click to expand...

Spot on.

Don't get me wrong, the 70-300IS is a cracking piece of glass for the money but its not the ultimate lens by a long way.

Having a zoom that goes to 300mm and a 300mm prime will almost certainly result however in you not being bothered to change lenses for the long end - easier to twist the ring instead.

Sell one, or the other would be my advice - unless you need 420mm which the 300 f4 is perfectly capable of with a 1.4x TC.
 
I spent a long time looking at all of the options, having put up with a 75-300 III USM for a while. Looking at the dpreview (?) site and comparing flickr pics, I ended up with the 70-200 f4 and a 1.4 TC. It focuses fast, nearly has the reach and doesn't soften at the long end (280mm with the TC). The 70-300 just lost out at the long end really. My next choice is what to do to go longer! 100-400 or 300mm f4 IS? ;)
 
desantnik said:
Spot on.

Don't get me wrong, the 70-300IS is a cracking piece of glass for the money but its not the ultimate lens by a long way.

Having a zoom that goes to 300mm and a 300mm prime will almost certainly result however in you not being bothered to change lenses for the long end - easier to twist the ring instead.

Sell one, or the other would be my advice - unless you need 420mm which the 300 f4 is perfectly capable of with a 1.4x TC.
Click to expand...

If I sell one, I will be selling the other and getting something to replace both. :) At the moment I never take out the 75-300IS and the 300 f/4 together, in fact I rarely take out the 75-300 IS at all due to the poorer long end and slower AF (which from the reviews appears to afflict all the 70-300s). :)

Right, I'm starting to go back on what I said earlier... Just looking at some reviews and dimensions/weight (important!) the 70-200 f/4 seems to be quite tempting... It's only a little heavier and an inch longer than the 70-300 IS and has similar IQ characteristics but better colour and contrast, even at 280mm with an extender...

Now the main issue is still the price. How much am I looking at for a 70-200 f/4 and 1.4x TC? It seems it would be around £400 for the 70-200 and another £170+ for the TC, making around £600 overall (if I get the 70-200 I will have to get a TC as well), the 70-300 IS look to be around £330 used. Now I have no idea how much I could get for the 75-300 IS, we paid around £300 (used) for it 3 years ago, but that was from a shop so probably overpriced, i'm guessing it should just be able to cover the TC now though*. The 300 f/4 should hopefully go for around £400+ which means it should fully cover the 70-200 purchase. Sound about right or am I in cloud Cuckcoo land?**

The last issue with the 70-200 would be the lack of IS, which is something I miss with the 300 f/4 and something i'll probably miss with the non IS 70-200, something i'd get with the 70-300... Some more thought there I think.:shrug:


*The 75-300 isn't my lens so I wouldn't get the money from the sale (to go towards the trip), however getting the 70-200, depending on sales prices of my kit the 75-300 could cover the TC and the 300 f/4 the 70-200, making it easier to keep the kit seperate.

**Not asking for price checks, just whether i'm in the right ballpark, I have a price check thread in the price check area though http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=212971
 
I think you have a good ball park there with regards price. Selling those two and replacing with the 70-200 + TC should (hopefully!) be possible. With regards to IS, I have never had it in a lens so don't miss it. However, from that point of view might popping into your local retailer and having a go help? The good thing about the 70-200 F4 is that it is nice and light and esily hand holdable. The the doesn't really affect this either.
 
That's good to know, RE prices. :)

With regards to IS it's something I really like on the 75-300, I can hand hold at around 1/100th at 300mm which is a godsend and something I do miss with the 300 f/4 I have at the moment. It's not a killer however, I bought the non IS f/4 because I culdn't afford the IS version but the extra £200-300 would probably go on another lens before I replaced the non IS with IS.

I love right next to Digital Depot so I'm going to head down there in a bit and have a fondle of the two options, along with seeing how much they would offer for the 75-300 IS, more out of interest really as I'd assume I could sell it for more on here.
 
Well that was good... Neither lens in stock... However they did give me a price for the 75-300 IS, which is a lot less than I want to sell it for, but doubling it (I guessed that would be a reasonable markup for them) got it to a better price and aligns reasonably well with what a couple of people who sold theirs in the last couple of years sold them for (stumbled across them on a website).
 
The 70-300mm IS is a huge upgrade over the old 75-300mm IS, but we can't expect it to be on par with a professional prime lens, like the 300mm f/4.0 L.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top