Why

[SpikeK6]

Hi just read a thread on lenses that all of you use most regular, and noticed that there was such a wide variety of lenses used but the most common size seemed to be the 70-200 mm.

What advantage disadvantage does this lens have over the 70 300mm??

I was looking at 70-300 lenses so just wanted to know your thoughts

thanks

Spike

 

[Sparkles33]

erm...it was cheaper

I didn't think that I'd need a 70-300 for the random stuff that I shoot and so far, I've been right.

 

[SK617]

I think the 70-200 is so popular because a lot of 70-200 are constant f2.8, whereas most 70-300 are f4-f5.6.
disadvantage would be price, £1500 ish for the nikon 70-200 vs £400 for the 70-300

I may of course be spouting utter rubbish, in which case I will get my coat

 

[EdinburghGary]

70 to 300 is an ace little lens, and unless you need the low light and depth of field, then I would go for it. I have both, and both are pretty great.

Gary.

 

[Zilog]

Agree with SK617 I think its mostly to do with the aperture size of the lens.

 

[pete.rush]

Hi just read a thread on lenses that all of you use most regular, and noticed that there was such a wide variety of lenses used but the most common size seemed to be the 70-200 mm.

What advantage disadvantage does this lens have over the 70 300mm??

I was looking at 70-300 lenses so just wanted to know your thoughts

thanks

Spike

Of course it depends which version of the 70-200mm you're talking about there's 4 canon versions

70-200mm f4 (non IS)
70-200mm f2.8 (non IS)
70-200mm f4 IS
70-200mm f2.8 IS

price varies from £500 - £1500 new. Its a useful lens to have and has many applications from wedding to motorsport depending which one you go for.

As the the 70-300mm IS (version?), this is a great little gem of a lens, Ok, not as fast as the 70-200mm, being f4-5.6, but it produces decent results at a very affordable price, to the existent that supply couldn't meet demand when it was first released.

 

[jiberjaber]

I certainly considered a 70-200 when I was looking for longer reach, I bout a cheap 70-300 non-VR (nikon) one to try it out to see how I got on with it. I liked the reach so much I bought a VR version of it and flogged the one I bought to try out.

I know thats a Nikon example, but it might be worth renting one of each to see how you get on and if it meets your expectations of what you are wanting it for?

 

[neil_g]

Of course it depends which version of the 70-200mm you're talking about there's 4 canon versions

70-200mm f4 (non IS)
70-200mm f2.8 (non IS)
70-200mm f4 IS
70-200mm f2.8 IS

price varies from £500 - £1500 new. Its a useful lens to have and has many applications from wedding to motorsport depending which one you go for..

and you havent even mentioned the 4 versions of the sigma 2.8.. a bit cheaper but equally as capable. no IS but meh. lol