Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #8 · 70-300L - can it replace 70-200/4 & 300/4 IS |
I am thinking of replacing my 70-200/4 & 300/4 (both IS versions) with the 70-300L. Will the new zoom be as good at the 300mm end as the prime? How is it wide open at MFD for subjects like butterflies? Anyone using it with extension tubes?
Seems like the IS will be much improved over the 300?
I don't use the 70-200 too often, but I do use the 300 quite a lot for birds, butters, etc. If I can consolidate to one lens, I would like to. For my bird blind shooting, I find 300 is often too much reach since the birds come in close, so the zoom would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this subject.
It's pretty solid at 300mm, maybe not quite the 300 f/4 non-IS, but very good and quite close. f/5.6 is quite different than f/4 though at 300mm. Wide open 300mm MFD it is a bit soft, sharper than the 70-200 f/4 IS at 200mm MFD wide open by quite a bit but actually just a trace less sharp than that lens 200mm MFD f/5.6.
It doesn't focus for heck with an extension tube on and used with my 5D3 or 7D, vastly worse than the other two lenses do with extension tubes on. Maybe the new 5D3 firmware will change that
I do like it a real lot though and did replace my 70-200 f/4 IS with it. I used to have a 300 f/4 non-IS but it had to go to help offset 300 2.8 IS cost.
Compared to my 70-200 f/4 IS, wide open, center frame, it was:
sharper at 70mm (although definitely with more CA)
similar at 100mm
less sharp at 135mm
similar to a bare trace less sharp at 165mm
a little bit sharper at 200mm (and with somewhat less CA)
noticeable sharper 201-280mm than the f/4 IS + 1.4x TC III (and with less CA and with 50% faster focusing than that combo)
I don't quite recall the results, but I think relatively similar at the edges.
My 70-300L was sharper at the extremes and less sharp in the middle range I'd guess I'd have to say.
Both are very sharp across the entire range 70-200mm though, 201-280mm the f/4 IS + TC is a bit soft and less contrasty though.