Lens decision... replacing my 70-300IS?

[Beachball]

I bought my 70-300IS primarily for sports (motorsport) photography and have been very pleased with the results.

But, a lot of my day-to-day shots are at 200mm or less as I am not at a motor circuit every weekend so I was thinking about selling the 70-300IS and getting a 70-200L F4. I believe it has better IQ (and constant F4) and then I could get an extender to get me to 300mm when I need it at motor circuits etc. I could buy the 70-200L as well but its too much overlap with the 70-300 IMO.

Is this a step-up from the 70-300IS in terms of IQ with or without an extender? When using a extender, would I need the IS version of the 70-200 or maybe even the F2.8 version to get at least the same speed/IQ etc as the 70-300?

Sorry for so many questions, I am just thinking aloud here really.

[Fozzybear]

I don't know the 70-300 IS, but my brother has a 70-200 f4L and he is extremely happy with it. I should think the optics would be quite a lot better in the 70-200 - the 70-300 Canons were never really good in my opinion (I used to shoot Canon in my 35mm days). I'd try searching on google for reviews of each by the same person to get an idea.

[jamesbryan17]

The F2.8 would be good for motorsport, but wouldn't the extender then take it to F4 anyway, so if you get the F4 version it would be slower with the extender.

[richard plumb]

I wouldn't bother to be honest. In most shootouts or forum questions aboiut 'which short telephoto', both these lenses get good comments. The f4L doesn't stand out proud in image quality from any of the posts, but some swear by it - perhaps the constant f4, perhaps the belief that as its 'L' it must be better. the 70-300IS is a lot better than the previous 75-300 (I think thats the one that had a bad rep)

If you swap, the only benefit you'll really get is the f4 on the longer end. But you're trading that for no IS and 100mm less reach.

if you stick a 1.4x on the end you'll be back at f5.6 which is what the 70-300 is anyway.

So I'd stick with what you have.

Wouldn't you miss the IS for motorsports? The panning mode is very helpful I found.

[richard plumb]

also worth considering price and usability (weight, size)


70-300IS: 630g, 150mm long, about £380

70-200 f4L: 700g, 172mm long, about £430 (so equivalent to the 70-300)

70-200 f4L IS: 760g, 172mm long. £720. so almost 150g more than the 70-300

70-200 f2.8 L IS: 1500g, 200mm long, £1250. So over double the weight, longer and hugely more expensive. Not sure you'd be walking around all day with that on your camera?

I personally wouldn't consider trading IS and 100mm for 1 stop apeture on the long end (they are the same on the short end). 70-200 f4L IS maybe.. I'd miss the long reach but then a 1.4 would bring that back and still have IS. Then I'd have f4 constant on both my main lenses (24-105)

[jonnypb]

I'd stick with what you have. Like Richard said the 70-300IS is a great lens and a huge improvement over the 75-300. The 70-200 F4 L is a nice lens but you're losing 100mm and IS. The IQ will be slightly better but not much and it is better built. The 70-300IS is highly regarded on POTN by a lot of people and the IQ is considered not far off L quality. Some people swear by the 70-200 F4 L on POTN but they seem to be the people that say if it's not an L it's not worth having

At the end of the day it's your choice but swapping what you have for the 70-200 F4 L isn't going to be too much of an upgrade. If you were upgrading to the IS version or the 2.8 then that would be a different matter....

[Just call me Al]

I have the Canon 70-300 IS lens. The reason I went for it was it seemed the best in (brief tests I did ) in comparison with the 70- 200. I tried both lenses. I took several images with both lenses of a signpost about 60 meters away in two directions. I also took the number plates of cars that were moving. I took a lot of shots at various other things & I also tried a Canon 2x converter on the Canon 70-200. I took the images home & compared & cropped them. The short answer was that both lenses were really good. The 70-200 cropped on the signpost was as good as the 70-200 with the 2x converter cropped, so the converter seemed to add nothing for the extra reach. I couldn't try a 1.4 or 1.7 converter as they didn't have any. Cropping all three (70-300, 70-200, & 70-200 with 2x converter) on signposts & car number plates the Canon 70-300 IS was the best & sharpest because of the extra reach, at 200mm there seemed nothing in it. I won't pretend this is the best test, but with only a couple of minutes with each lens I did as much as I could. I also did the same tests at the time with my Sigma 28-300 & it came in a very, very poor third, the Sigma 28-300 has now been swapped for the Sigma 18-200 OS & I'm very pleased with that. There is a big crossover with the 2 lenses but I don't mind that.

[andy_fozzy]

Check out the 'verdict' section right at the bottom of the page:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...56is/index.htm

(A hidden L lens....)

That is one of many sites that sings this lens's praises.
I've got one, and I adore it!

[Fozzybear]

That's interesting - I'd always thought the Canon 70-300 zooms were not that good. Looks like they really went all out to make this one a good'un (kinda like Nikon with the 70-300VR).

[andy_fozzy]

This is what she can do @ 300mm (and it could be better if I were a better photog!!)

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by Fozzybear

That's interesting - I'd always thought the Canon 70-300 zooms were not that good.

alot of people keep thinking about the canon 75-300 which was a bit of a stinker!

[allymac123]

I've actually been considering this switch. For the one reason that the 70-200 has ring USM.

I hate with a passion the rotating front element and slow focus speed of my 70-300. Saying that, when tripod mounted with MLU @ F9 this is an extremely sharp lens.

[RobDickinson]

I have an old 75-300 (given not bought) and its distinctly average at best, even stoped down on tripod.

The 70-300IS is a whole other lens and one I'm very intrested in getting, especialy for its low weight too.

Then again is it wrong to want a sigma 120-300f2.8 too?? :D

[Beachball]

Thanks for all your comments. It really was me just thinking out loud and by the balance of opinion here and after looking at a couple of reviews etc it seems that I should stick with my 70-300. I've always been pleased with it - I just didn't appreciate how highly regarded it is in reviews etc.

[andy_fozzy]

Originally Posted by bubble502

alot of people keep thinking about the canon 75-300 which was a bit of a stinker!

Yes I've heard that too!

Apparently a HUUUGE difference in the two.