Canon telephoto comparison

turnpike

turnpike

Messages
244
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
No
Unless I'm getting my models muddled, I've seen severeal reviews and comparisons of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

One says that as they are priced similarly, get the L for quality and clarity.

Now I just looked about the shops online and as far as I can see, the non L lens is less than half the price of the nearly a grand 70-200 L.

Am I missing something or has the value of the 70-300 gone down?

Cheers,
turnpike
 
turnpike said:
Unless I'm getting my models muddled, I've seen severeal reviews and comparisons of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

One says that as they are priced similarly, get the L for quality and clarity.

Now I just looked about the shops online and as far as I can see, the non L lens is less than half the price of the nearly a grand 70-200 L.

Am I missing something or has the value of the 70-300 gone down?

Cheers,
turnpike
Click to expand...

No, it's more likely that the comparison that you've seen is between the 70-300 and the 70-200 f/4L non-IS, which is considerably cheaper than the IS version.
 
Thanks, you're right the L lens was non IS. I reckon I need IS for tele.
 
I'd be worried about a tele with no IS. Presumably the idea is you have to use a tripod?
 
turnpike said:
I'd be worried about a tele with no IS. Presumably the idea is you have to use a tripod?
Click to expand...

It depends entirely upon what you're photographing. I photograph sport and editorial so there's not a lot of need for it for me...

either the subject's moving, or I'm using fill-flash so there's little benefit.

When I sell the siggy 70-200 and get a canon it'll be the f/2.8 NON IS version.
 
The lighter 70-200 f4 non IS is much easier to hand hold than the 2.8 (is or not), so you could "probably" get away without IS.
At 300mm I would want IS though.
 
MatBin said:
The lighter 70-200 f4 non IS is much easier to hand hold than the 2.8 (is or not), so you could "probably" get away without IS.
At 300mm I would want IS though.
Click to expand...

As clarified above, the 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is usually compared to the 70-200mm f4, there's about £100/150 difference in price between the 2 lenses, but the 70-200mm f4 is by far the better lens, quality optics, sharp and a constant f4 throughout the zoom range. The 70-300mm ain't bad, and is probably the front runner of the 70-300mm lenses, but the L is a step up in quality.

As for IS, it depends what you are photographing. IS is definitely more for photographing stationary objects when the light conditions fall off, I don't use it for action photography.

As for monopods or tripods, would only use these for heavy lenses, and what I mean about a heavy lens is something like the 400mm f2.8 @ 5.6kg or another prime like the 600mm f4. A Tripod would be used for sunsets / landscapes etc where long exposures are required.

The 70-300mm ain't heavy, I regularly handhold the 300mm f2.8 @ 2.5kg with no problems
 
The are actually three Canon 70-300mm lenses:

1) 70-300 mm non IS
2) 70-300 mm IS (the one discussed above)
3) 70-300 mm DO (diffractive optics) IS

The DO lens has a street price of around £1000 to £1100. It isn't cheap but, from the reviews I've read, the image quality is close to "L" range standard. It's also significantly shorter (yes, shorter) than the bog standard 70-300 lenses.
 
alexhcowley said:
The are actually three Canon 70-300mm lenses:

1) 70-300 mm non IS
2) 70-300 mm IS (the one discussed above)
3) 70-300 mm DO (diffractive optics) IS

The DO lens has a street price of around £1000 to £1100. It isn't cheap but, from the reviews I've read, the image quality is close to "L" range standard. It's also significantly shorter (yes, shorter) than the bog standard 70-300 lenses.
Click to expand...

The DO is a cracking Quality Lens but has some very strange image qualities on OOF foreground/background which has caused a lot of people to discount it from seriuos consideration
 
You don't have to use a tripod at all.

I have a 70-200mm F4 L and use it allot without support.

Boost the ISO up, to keep the shutter speed above the focal length and you should be ok.

My old mate Alby uses a 400mm L F5.6 (non IS) and his shots are always tack sharp.
 
just depends on technique, have nailed a shot at 1.30 at 300mm without IS, but i've shot guns all my life so have a steady (very) hand.. I'm not worried about IS and don't pay a great deal of attention to the length = shutter speed (ie: 300mm = 1.320 or more)
 
alexhcowley said:
The are actually three Canon 70-300mm lenses:

1) 70-300 mm non IS
2) 70-300 mm IS (the one discussed above)
3) 70-300 mm DO (diffractive optics) IS

The DO lens has a street price of around £1000 to £1100. It isn't cheap but, from the reviews I've read, the image quality is close to "L" range standard. It's also significantly shorter (yes, shorter) than the bog standard 70-300 lenses.
Click to expand...

Non of the above Lenses is in the same street as any of the Canon 70-200mm zooms whether the F2.8 or F4 versions

the Do Lens is massivly overpriced IMHO I have used 3 different one's and bitterly dissapointing performance with all 3 of them
and would not touch them with a bargepole - in fact with the first one I actually advised a friend to purchase it (to my eternal embarrasment)

Pete Rush's post is spot on
my 2p
 
alexhcowley said:
The are actually three Canon 70-300mm lenses:

1) 70-300 mm non IS
2) 70-300 mm IS (the one discussed above)
3) 70-300 mm DO (diffractive optics) IS

The DO lens has a street price of around £1000 to £1100. It isn't cheap but, from the reviews I've read, the image quality is close to "L" range standard. It's also significantly shorter (yes, shorter) than the bog standard 70-300 lenses.
Click to expand...

I belive the 1st one is actually the 75-300 USM not 70-300. I owned it and sold it for half the price a month later and thats when I was a super total noob :bonk:

I own today the 70-300IS and very satisfied with it. Granted not L but def not the dooms day lens from hell as some up here seem to have pictured it.

As for the DO never used one but was always told/read to steer away from. At the price it holds buy an actual L
 
The problems arise because there are several similar variations of this lens

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM lens
The above 2 are mediocre at best the the IS version is actually discontinued. Cheap budget lenses usually thrown in as part of the camera bundle.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens
There's the DO version, which uses Diffractive Optics, compact, useful for a holiday lens, but soft and not worth the extra $$$$$

Then there's the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. Budget zoom, but a little gem of a lens, OK probably not L series optics, but for the $$$$ its a very good budget zoom
 
andy_fozzy said:
Boost the ISO up, to keep the shutter speed above the focal length and you should be ok..
Click to expand...

However, the IS on the 70-300 is excellent when you want to keep the shutter speed deliberately low, for motorsport paning shots for example.

On the flip side, the IS can add some strange looking bokeh on stationary shots.
 
pete.rush said:
Then there's the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens. Budget zoom, but a little gem of a lens, OK probably not L series optics, but for the $$$$ its a very good budget zoom
Click to expand...

I have this lens, I have found it gives good colours, nice and sharp and a bargain pricewise for what you get.

The other factor that make this lens a favorite of mine is the weight...

This lens is really nice to use, doesn't weigh a ton so gets taken everywhere and therefore used....

Jim.R said:
However, the IS on the 70-300 is excellent when you want to keep the shutter speed deliberately low, for motorsport paning shots for example.

On the flip side, the IS can add some strange looking bokeh on stationary shots.
Click to expand...

The IS has allowed me to get some great shots in crappy light at maximum zoom...

A clickable example taken in nasty grey light (shot at f5.6, 1/60th at 250mm according to the exif)

 
turnpike said:
I'd be worried about a tele with no IS. Presumably the idea is you have to use a tripod?
Click to expand...

petersmart said:
I find that IS is an absolute MUST for me when using a telephoto lens.

I find the difference it makes is incredible.
Click to expand...

Well, I've got the 70-200 F4 non IS, had the 70-200 f2.8 IS since christmas.

I've no problem with using the non IS lens at any speeds as it's so light, small and easy to hold. How about 1/100th at F4, 200mm
93140081.jpg


For me though the 2.8 IS lens is another step forward. I love this lens and for rugby it's excellent at isolating players. I use this handheld but just pop the shutter speed high
122364491.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top