Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens... vs 70-200 IS f4

captures.in.time

captures.in.time

Messages
1,764
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all.

I currently have the original 75-300mm IS lens... was state of the art when I got it but now is ageing and I just fancy replacing it.... Im not overly impressed with the shots since i've upgraded my other 28-135 with the 24-105mm it just makes the 75-300mm shots look like they just dont have it! I dont use a telephoto that often... but I do like to have it when I need it.

Im actually not seriously thinking of spending the cash till next year but just thinking about it and hoping prices may fall a little! And want to go out and test my 75-300mm IS again anyway and check im thinking of changing something that in reality I dont need.

I guess i've always had a hankering for the 70-200mm f4 Is... it is one of the best lenses in the world and I just sorta want one... my feer with it is that ive always had some sort of 70-300 telephoto and the 70-200 wont have the pulling power. but i could got the 1.4 extender... is it still as good with the extender or is there a marked drop in quality... I mean more so that ill notice and wander why I bothered changing in the first place?

But what about the new kid in town the 70-300 DO... It's not got a red line... but does it really ooze quality as canaon would have us believe... It almost seems too small... but then that apeals in a way also as I like my travel photography!

Im ruling out the 100-400 as its a beast and for the stuff I do do it's an extravagance really...

Anyway... any thoughts????
 
I'm approaching this from the opposite end, I have a 70-200 f4L and it totally outclasses my WA-Tele lens which is a Sigma 17-70. I can honestly say that you will not regret buying a 70-200 f4L the pictures are crisp and sharp and because of this will take a lot of croping and still look great. Considering how mmuch I'll have to pay for a shorter lens thhe 70-200 was a bargain and I wouldn't change it :)

MB
 
The DO stuff is a bit of a techological dead end IMHO. Yes its smaller, but its not as good.

If you want smaller, get yourself one of the top end pocket cameras, if you want quality get the proper glass on a proper camera.

I don't see the point really?
 
The 100-400 is indeed a bit of a lump and it was for that reason I thought the 70-200 f4Lwas a good idea, because if it is a planned trip the 100-400 will go, but as it is so heavy it won't be carried on the off chance.

The 70-200 f4L even with IS is amazingly light, and seems a bit of a toy next to the 100-400 in everything except performance. If sold by weight it would seem incredibly expensive.

I like everything about it, performance, portability, quality of build and the fact that the movement is internal.
 
I've just got the 70-200 f4 IS and it's a great lens and not much different in price from the 70-300 DO. What I heard/read about the DO while I was making the same decision is that it's brilliant in ergonomics but doesn't cut it as far as image quality goes. (and you get donuts in your bokeh which is a bit of a marmite issue!)

Haven't had a chance to use a 1.4x with my 70-200 (as I haven't got one yet) but I've heard image quality is good, but autofocus speed takes a hit.
 
heard less than flattering things about the DO from a pro tog agency a while ago now.
I have the 70-300 IS and like it but L glass would be a cut above.
with a FF sensor, the 200 might be a bit short for you though..?
 
Thats my prob... I have a full frame sensor and do feel the 200 might be too short... although I saw a post the other day suggesting all the crop sensor actually does is crop the image... so I could take a pic on full frame and then just crop it to get the same effect without loss of pic quality... Im not so sure and totally confused about it... sensors and pixels are still a bit of a grey area to me with digital

Why dont canon do an L series lens covering the 70-300 or 100 to 300 range??? That would be the ideal answer!!!

im seriously thinking of the 70-200 plus a 1.4 convertor...however

Can someone tell me how the 2x converter works with the f4 IS as someone told me that the autofocus does not work on it... which would be rubbish?
 
You'll lose two stops of light with the 2x converter, which will take it from F/4 to F/8. Only Canons 1 series bodies will autofocus above F/5.6.
I think you can mask some connections on the teleconverter to trick the camera into trying to autofocu, but I suspect the results wouldn't be worth it.
 
markelliot said:
Thats my prob... I have a full frame sensor and do feel the 200 might be too short... although I saw a post the other day suggesting all the crop sensor actually does is crop the image... so I could take a pic on full frame and then just crop it to get the same effect without loss of pic quality... Im not so sure and totally confused about it... sensors and pixels are still a bit of a grey area to me with digital

Why dont canon do an L series lens covering the 70-300 or 100 to 300 range??? That would be the ideal answer!!!

im seriously thinking of the 70-200 plus a 1.4 convertor...however

Can someone tell me how the 2x converter works with the f4 IS as someone told me that the autofocus does not work on it... which would be rubbish?
Click to expand...

Forget cropping a 5D image. It doesn't work like that at all. There are lots of aspects to it, but when you reduce your pixel count by 2.5 times you cannot expect "no loss of quality" :eek:

I had the 70-300 DO. I bought it because it fitted my bag, and to be fair it took a lot of damn good quality pictures. But it's fat and heavy, certainly not small when zoomed out, and suffers very annoying zoom creep (lens extends when hanging from the camera). Sold it for a 100-400L (which doesn't fit my bag :lol: ). I think it's fair to say that Canon has decided DO technology is not a ball worth chasing.

I'm now going to get a 70-200L 4 IS (prices are coming down slightly thanks to the dollar - check Kerso) for those many occasions when I just haven't got the 100-400 with me. It's a toss up between this lens and the 70-300IS, which is very good indeed, but the 70-200 4 is just a cut above, and with L build of course.

I'll be happy to use a 1.4x extender with it when pressed, but 2x takes you beyond AF capability with non-1 Series Canons even if image quality was up to it (which is a big ask). On full frame, I think it would be a different decision for me. I would probably just stick with the 100-400 as 70-200 is no reach at all on full frame, but looking at practical considerations the extra reach of the 70-300 would edge it ahead.

Whatever you do, any of these lenses will blitz your 75-300, which was conceived during one of Canon's rare barren spells.

Edit: crossed post with Jim. Just to say that taping the pins on an extender doesn't work. The camera will try to AF, but it cannot because the aperture is optically reduced and is too small in diameter for it to function. This is what prevents the AF from working, and fooling the camera doesn't change that.
 
HoppyUK said:
Forget cropping a 5D image. It doesn't work like that at all. There are lots of aspects to it, but when you reduce your pixel count by 2.5 times you cannot expect "no loss of quality" :eek:
Click to expand...

Presumably this depends on which camera/crop sensor you are comparing with!

HoppyUK said:
Edit: crossed post with Jim. Just to say that taping the pins on an extender doesn't work. The camera will try to AF, but it cannot because the aperture is optically reduced and is too small in diameter for it to function. This is what prevents the AF from working, and fooling the camera doesn't change that.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the reason for taping the pins is because otherwise the body will prevent you from even attempting to use AF. I've heard that in bright conditions the 5D/5D2 will focus at f/8, just not quickly.
 
I was extremely fortunate in that one of the kind folk on here lent me a 1.4x tc to try with the F4L IS :thumbs: but TBH I didn't find it that useful.

The lens feels like I should own one, but in truth I think I should have spent the money on the 135L instead since I just do like the blurred out backgrounds more than the F4L can deliver, particularly with the TC on it (down to F/5.6).
 
markelliot said:
Why dont canon do an L series lens covering the 70-300 or 100 to 300 range??? That would be the ideal answer!!!
Click to expand...

Because they have tried to keep the L range for top notch stuff. The ultra-zooms (35-300 and 100-400) are very old hat these days and it wouldnt do their reputation any good to make something new of that ilk.

Ultra zooms are always a compromise and Canon don't want to you to get the idea that any L glass is a compromise of any sort, well, not any more!

They will be happy for Sigma to fill that gap in the market...
 
markelliot said:
although I saw a post the other day suggesting all the crop sensor actually does is crop the image.
Click to expand...
naw....
I think you're confusing Nikon D3's that can take Dx and Fx lenses???
the way I see it is that full frame sensors are at a certain distance away from lens. at 200mm they are 200mm.
However, if you have a smaller sensor then the sensor can only capture the light that falls on this. There may be a difference in the distance from the glass to the sensor too. Whatever the difference the handy thing is that cropped sensors use the centre of the glass, which is 'sweeter' and errors at the edge during manufacture don't show up as much. Also the effect is that all your 8Mp/12Mp or 15Mp are in that centre area. so the smaller the sensor, the greater the illusion of the lens being a longer focal length. 200mm becomes 320mm.
With high end Nikons, the full frame glass shines on the whole of the sensor. It adapts with APS-C designed glass to only capture the smaller die size within the sensor grid (the light around it will be quite distorted maybe). So it can use the glass but only uses the centre of the sensor and so they lose a few megapixels.
Make sense? or just patronising pants...I apologise for the latter
 
desantnik said:
Because they have tried to keep the L range for top notch stuff. The ultra-zooms (35-300 and 100-400) are very old hat these days and it wouldnt do their reputation any good to make something new of that ilk.

Ultra zooms are always a compromise and Canon don't want to you to get the idea that any L glass is a compromise of any sort, well, not any more!

They will be happy for Sigma to fill that gap in the market...
Click to expand...

what about the Canon EF 28-300 mm F3.5-F5.6 L IS USM
what a walkabout lens that would be on a full frame body.
or is it weak in places?
 
DizMatt said:
what about the Canon EF 28-300 mm F3.5-F5.6 L IS USM
what a walkabout lens that would be on a full frame body.
or is it weak in places?
Click to expand...
Have you ever used one? They weigh a ton. They have their uses - and optically I think they're far better than a 10x zoom has any right to be - but I would suggest they're not very convenient for a walkabout lens.
 
I think the 70-300 DO is a sort of unloved problem child. When we got our first one I was pleasantly surprised when I tested it - much, much sharper than I was expecting from all the negative reviews. Of course it's not going to be as good as a 70-200L, but then no telephoto zoom is. The really big advantage of the DO is that it's short, and it will probably fit in your bag when many other telephoto zooms wouldn't fit.
 
DizMatt said:
what about the Canon EF 28-300 mm F3.5-F5.6 L IS USM what a walkabout lens that would be on a full frame body.
or is it weak in places?
Click to expand...

Well yes its very average down the whole focal length and as Stewart says it weighs a ton.

In my book a walkabout lens needs to be at least light, if not stunning in IQ. Anything that goes too long or wide constant aperture is going to be heavy. Probably your best bet would be something like the Canon 55-250 IS (assuming 55 is wide enough... thats not very wide...) ... its very light, very cheap, its got IS if you need it and the IQ is not bad (because its a very new lens). Its no 70-200 2.8, but its more of a walk about lens.
 
markrichardson said:
Presumably this depends on which camera/crop sensor you are comparing with!
Click to expand...

Not really. When you crop an image, not only are you reducing the number of pixels, you are also asking the lens to deliver 1.6x more resolution. It can only do that with substantially reduced contrast (optical fact of life). In this respect it is similar to adding a teleconverter. And the OP is talking about a 5D, which does not have that many pixels to start with in today's terms.


markrichardson said:
As I understand it, the reason for taping the pins is because otherwise the body will prevent you from even attempting to use AF. I've heard that in bright conditions the 5D/5D2 will focus at f/8, just not quickly.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends. Yes, many cameras switch you out after f/5.6 and if I tape the pins on my TC and Canon 40D, it will have a go at AF up to about f/6.3, but then it just goes berserk and I hate to think what the AF motor is going through. Sigma and others use this little bit of headroom with their f/6.3 lenses, but Canon's own lenses do not exceed f/5.6.

However, the point is that you can't get the camera to AF past f/5.6 just by taping the pins and fooling it. The problem is the phyical diameter of the aperture that the AF module sees, and that is not changed with taping. Light level doesn't make much difference in my experience either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top