Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       4       end
  

Archive 2013 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS
  
 
Chuck Eklund
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


From those who have both lenses, what do you think of them? Which would you pick if you could have only one?

Chuck



Jul 29, 2013 at 06:37 PM
safcraft
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


The 70-300L is a much bigger lens, so i would compare it to the 70-200 2.8 version in terms of size.
That beeing said, i prefer my MDP 80-200L , as it drains much more magic than either of OP's lens.



Jul 29, 2013 at 06:53 PM
Bearmann
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


I have both lenses. I haven't pixel peeped them to the Nth degree, but my gut instinct is that the 70-300L is at least as sharp. The IS on the 70-300L is noticeably better, so handheld shots on the 70-300L tend to be sharper. I'm strongly in favor of the 70-300L over the 70-200 f4L IS. My wife uses the 70-200 f4L IS and likes the lighter weight, otherwise I would sell it.
.



Jul 29, 2013 at 07:20 PM
GC5
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS



I found the size, weight and ergonomics of the 70-200 f4LIS to be a little more user friendly. Both were sharp enough for all of my needs. YMMV. If you need 300, I would get the 70-300. It's better and easier to use than the 70-200 with a TC.



Jul 29, 2013 at 07:52 PM
robbymack
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


My 70-200 f4IS is my best lens by a wide margin. I wouldn't trade it for anything. That being said I do wish I could reach out to 300 from time to time. You really can't go wrong with either choice but if you think 200-300 is a range you're going to need often I'd opt for the 70-300.


Jul 29, 2013 at 08:27 PM
Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


safcraft wrote:
The 70-300L is a much bigger lens, so i would compare it to the 70-200 2.8 version in terms of size.
That beeing said, i prefer my MDP 80-200L , as it drains much more magic than either of OP's lens.


You are wrong. The 70-300 is a much shorter lens. And more easy to get down in your bag or backpack



Jul 29, 2013 at 08:34 PM
Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


I own both lenses. And my 70-200 have not been used much since I got the 70-300 lens.


Jul 29, 2013 at 08:40 PM
Tenn.Jer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


I have the 70-200 2.8 II and the 70-300L, and the 70-300 is a lot shorter, less bulky, and significantly lighter. It's VERY sharp, and the IS is about as good as it gets. I've never owned the f/4 version, but now I only use the 2.8 when I have to have such a large aperture...Three weeks in Wyoming and Colorado, both lenses with me, and I never even mounted the 70-200; 75% of all my frames were from the 70-300L.

I highly recommend it.

Jerry



Jul 29, 2013 at 09:13 PM
safcraft
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


Lars Johnsson wrote:
You are wrong. The 70-300 is a much shorter lens. And more easy to get down in your bag or backpack


I am not. The 70-300L is much fatter and difficult to stack in a ordinary bag. I own a Tamrac Exp3 and it does not fit in it with the camera attached without sacrificing the other lenses. The 70-200 does not have that problem.
So i guess it all depends on YOUR bag , cause in MY bag it does not fit.



Jul 29, 2013 at 09:47 PM
Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


70-200/2,8 IS II Maximum Diameter x Length (mm) 88.8x 199
70-200/4 IS Maximum Diameter x Length (mm 76 x 172
70-300 L IS Maximum Diameter x Length (mm 89◊143

And you think the 70-300 have the same size as the 70-200/2,8



Jul 29, 2013 at 09:53 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



safcraft
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


So if one reads correctly, that is .2mm difference in 'with' size, which is what i said it counts in my bag and other alike.
The extra 6cm in Length are of no matter to me (or my bag). I can fit the 80-200L though because it is slimmer !
So to each their own....why do you think you know it all?



Jul 29, 2013 at 09:59 PM
Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


safcraft wrote:
So if one reads correctly, that is .2mm difference in 'with' size, which is what i said it counts in my bag and other alike.
The extra 6cm in Length are of no matter to me (or my bag). I can fit the 80-200L though because it is slimmer !
So to each their own....why do you think you know it all?


You say 0,2 mm in diameter is a lot but 60 mm in length is nothing



Jul 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM
Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


Tenn.Jer wrote:
I have the 70-200 2.8 II and the 70-300L, and the 70-300 is a lot shorter, less bulky, and significantly lighter. It's VERY sharp, and the IS is about as good as it gets. I've never owned the f/4 version, but now I only use the 2.8 when I have to have such a large aperture...Three weeks in Wyoming and Colorado, both lenses with me, and I never even mounted the 70-200; 75% of all my frames were from the 70-300L.

I highly recommend it.

Jerry


I also have the 70-200/2,8 version. And I agree with you. Both in the IQ and sharpness. And in the less bulky comment



Jul 29, 2013 at 10:10 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


safcraft wrote:
So if one reads correctly, that is .2mm difference in 'with' size, which is what i said it counts in my bag and other alike.
The extra 6cm in Length are of no matter to me (or my bag). I can fit the 80-200L though because it is slimmer !
So to each their own....why do you think you know it all?


0.2mm is 3x the width of the average human hair, and that makes a difference to your ability to pack this lens in a camera bag?

Surely you jest?



Jul 29, 2013 at 10:14 PM
skibum5
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


Chuck Eklund wrote:
From those who have both lenses, what do you think of them? Which would you pick if you could have only one?

Chuck


search my old responses to similar (although I basically hit the key points below)

but quickly my 70-300L compared to my 70-200 f/4 IS was:
somewhat heavier and fatter

noticeably shorter

cost a bit more

focused the same speed

I believe focused slightly more precisely

focused radically worse, basically not all, if an extension tube or TC was added (f/4 IS does fine with either when it comes to AF)

comparing center frame sharpness when each lens is set to the fastest aperture that the 70-300L is capable at the given focal length (and edge CA):
sharper at 70mm although with definitely more lateral CA

about the same sharpness and lateral CA at 100mm

less sharp and about the same lateral CA at 135mm

almost as sharp and about the same lateral CA at 165mm

a little bit sharper and with a bit less lateral CA at 200mm

noticeably sharper and with definitely less lateral CA 201-280mm compared to the f/4 IS paired with a 1.4x TC III (also focuses 50% faster in this case compared to the f/4 IS + TC)


70-200 f/4 IS is a crazy good lens, but shockingly I eventually sold it after trying and keeping the 70-300L, took me like 6 months to bare to part with the f/4 IS but part I did, still have the 70-300L, one of my most used lenses (my other most used are 24-70 II especially and also a decent amount 100L macro and 300 2.8 IS)



Jul 29, 2013 at 10:38 PM
safcraft
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


Pixel Perfect wrote:
0.2mm is 3x the width of the average human hair, and that makes a difference to your ability to pack this lens in a camera bag?

Surely you jest?


Dude...this post is getting crazy. Of course .2mm is nothing.
I said the WITH (diameter) is what counts slipping the lens in the bag. And with that i say i CANNOT put the 70-300 or the 70-200 2.8 in the bag, because they are the SAME diameter.

I can however slip the 70.200 f4 or the 80-200L because they are slimmer.




Jul 29, 2013 at 10:39 PM
skibum5
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


safcraft wrote:
The 70-300L is a much bigger lens, so i would compare it to the 70-200 2.8 version in terms of size.
That beeing said, i prefer my MDP 80-200L , as it drains much more magic than either of OP's lens.


Wow I wouldn't remotely say that! It's much lighter and smaller than the 2.8s! The only reason I even got it for the very fact that is much smaller and lighter than the 70-200 2.8 IS II (and doesn't need TC swap for 300mm). 70-200 2.8s are bulky, can't remotely be stashed in a cargo pants pocket and such and are totally different beasts IMO.

It's not even really bigger than the f/4 IS either. It's definitely fatter and a little bit heavier but it is also MUCH shorter which in some ways makes it actually fit pockets and such MORE easily than the f/4 IS. And the 70-200 2.8 I had man that was way harder to fit anyway, 100% forget even a large cargo pants pocket for that and it gobbled up wayyy more bag space (and I had the 2.8 non-IS which isn't even as big as the 2.8 IS II).




Jul 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM
johnctharp
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


A 70-300L fits in a cargo pocket? Pics or it didn't happen .


Jul 29, 2013 at 11:10 PM
chas1113
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


My experience mirrors Skibum's exactly....right down to holding onto the EF 70-200 f/4 IS for months without using it before finally letting it go. The EF 70-300 L is easier to pack, easier to hold (even though it's heavieró but much lighter than the Drainpipe ) and easier to use than a 70-200 L with extender. That's why I kept it and not the EF 70-200 f/4 IS.


Jul 30, 2013 at 12:11 AM
chez
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


Pixel Perfect wrote:
0.2mm is 3x the width of the average human hair, and that makes a difference to your ability to pack this lens in a camera bag?

Surely you jest?


I believe he was comparing it to the 70-200 f4, not the 2.8 version. Compared to the f4 lens, it does add a lot of girth.



Jul 30, 2013 at 12:23 AM
1
       2       3       4       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password