Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  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

  
 
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


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


It does, any old cargo shorts have pockets that will easily hold it. (obviously not the top pockets, the lower cargo ones).
I had some filters and mem cards and such in one pocket (a few times a 14mm) and the 70-300L or 24-70 II in the other big pocket and whichever lens wasn't in the pocket was on camera.

(the world is not ready to see such photos)



Jul 29, 2013 at 08:11 PM
Tom Dix
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


I much prefer the IQ of the 70/200, however, if you need 300, the 70/300 is better at 300 than the 70/200 w 1.4 III is at max length of approx 283~ish.


Jul 29, 2013 at 08:29 PM
gocolts
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


70-300L for me. And between it's range, smaller size, and IQ, I have to say that it'd be hard to part with, regardless of other available lenses. Perfect travel lens, and perfect for the racetrack.




Jul 29, 2013 at 08:54 PM
garyroach
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


I recently faced the decision of whether to buy the 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300 L. I decided to buy a 70-200 f/4 IS to use as a travel lens, since I also have a 70-200 2.8 IS II. I also have a 300mm f/4 IS which I love. I'm impressed with the image quality of the 300mm every time I use it. So, my travel kit consists of a 24-105, 70-200 f/4 IS, and a 300mm f/4 IS. If you want to get out to 300mm and carry fewer lenses, the 70-300L would be a good choice. Anyone know what the largest aperture of the 70-300L is at 200mm?


Jul 29, 2013 at 09:18 PM
dalite
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


Sometimes I think we are comparing apples and oranges. The 70-300 advantage, based on most comments, is the longer reach. I find the 70-200/f4 L IS to be tack sharp and couples nicely with a 1.4 TC. Now, is the 70-200 +1.4 TC as sharp as the 70-300 at the latter's 300mm? I don't know. I do know that the 70-300 +1.4 TC becomes f8 at 300mm, so how is the focusing in low light? The 70-200 +1.4 TC still performs as a decent f5.6 aperture.

For anything beyond 200mm, one might as well get a 400mm prime lens or longer (if one can afford it) for wildlife and birds.



Jul 29, 2013 at 10:18 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


garyroach wrote:
I recently faced the decision of whether to buy the 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300 L. I decided to buy a 70-200 f/4 IS to use as a travel lens, since I also have a 70-200 2.8 IS II. I also have a 300mm f/4 IS which I love. I'm impressed with the image quality of the 300mm every time I use it. So, my travel kit consists of a 24-105, 70-200 f/4 IS, and a 300mm f/4 IS. If you want to get out to 300mm and carry fewer lenses, the 70-300L would be a good choice. Anyone know
...Show more

It is a fast f/5 at 200mm (I say fast because the f/4 IS seems to be a bit slow of an f/4 at 200mm).
It's 300mm isn't far off of 300 f/4 quality at all.



Jul 29, 2013 at 10:27 PM
Chuck Eklund
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


Thank you all for all of the great first hand information. Just what I was looking for. For my needs I think the 70-300 L will be it. Again, thanks.

Chuck



Jul 29, 2013 at 10:29 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


dalite wrote:
I find the 70-200/f4 L IS to be tack sharp and couples nicely with a 1.4 TC. Now, is the 70-200 +1.4 TC as sharp as the 70-300 at the latter's 300mm? I don't know.


Definitely not, at least not with the two copies I compared. 70-300L was clearly better and it also had 50% faster AF 201-280mm than the f/4 IS and you avoid the really pain in the neck TC swap dance.

I do know that the 70-300 +1.4 TC becomes f8 at 300mm, so how is the focusing in low light? The 70-200 +1.4 TC still performs as a decent f5.6 aperture.


Yeah of course the 70-200 f/4 IS + TC focuses infinitely better than the 70-300+ TC, but you need to compare 70-200 f/4 IS + 2x TC to make it fair. I mean the bare 70-300L already does what the 70-200 f/4 IS + TC does and it's not stuck f/5.6 across the range.





Jul 29, 2013 at 10:30 PM
Jim Victory
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


dalite wrote:
Sometimes I think we are comparing apples and oranges. The 70-300 advantage, based on most comments, is the longer reach. I find the 70-200/f4 L IS to be tack sharp and couples nicely with a 1.4 TC. Now, is the 70-200 +1.4 TC as sharp as the 70-300 at the latter's 300mm? I don't know. I do know that the 70-300 +1.4 TC becomes f8 at 300mm, so how is the focusing in low light? The 70-200 +1.4 TC still performs as a decent f5.6 aperture.

For anything beyond 200mm, one might as well get a 400mm prime lens or longer
...Show more

The 70-300L with a 1.4x TC actually becomes 420mm @f/8 and is still sharp wide open. The 70-200 f/4L + 1.4x is only 280mm @f/5.6. You would have to slap a 2x on it to get to 400mm @f/8.

I have owned and used all of these lenses and the only lens I would use instead of the 70-300L is the 100-400L just because of the reach not performance.

Jim



Jul 29, 2013 at 10:30 PM
Bearmann
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


As I remember, my 70-300L IS wouldn't take a Canon 1.4x tc unless I put a tube in between (which killed the focusing). Does the newest 1.4x fit differently?

Oh, and Chuck, I think you will love the new lens.



Jul 29, 2013 at 10:43 PM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


I know the op has made his decision, but here is my 2 cents.
I own 7-2 4 IS, 7-2 2.8 IS II, 100-400 IS, and 70-300L IS.
I like shooting manual mode a lot of times, and b/c of that I like the constant aperture of 70-200 f4.
I find 70-300 focal range a bit in no man's land on FF. Too short for real wild life. If I find 200 is shot, I really want 400. On a crop, it would work better.
I find the image quality on 3/4 lenses above stellar. I would say 100-400L is very good, but not stellar. However, on full frame, its sharp at 400 f 5.6. the 100-400L clearly is the slowest focusing, worst tracking, and worst IS of the bunch, but reach is reach.
Ergonomics, I like 70-200 better. yes, its longer, but I like the internal zoom and lighter weight. However, the 70-300 packs vertically in both of my sligbacks, where is 70-200 has a difficult time.
So short of it, on a full frame, I would pick the 70-200. on a crop I would give 70-300 a lock for its versatility as a wild life lens.



Jul 29, 2013 at 11:29 PM
Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · 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.


The 70-300 much lighter and smaller than the 70-200/2,8 lenses. Also a lot smaller & lighter than the 80-200 lens. More easy to pack in my bags and bagpacks (and that includes the 70-200/4 IS)

The 70-300 is a Sharp and very good lens for it's long zoom range. And the price is not to high either



Jul 30, 2013 at 12:11 AM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


Bearmann wrote:
As I remember, my 70-300L IS wouldn't take a Canon 1.4x tc unless I put a tube in between (which killed the focusing). Does the newest 1.4x fit differently?

Oh, and Chuck, I think you will love the new lens.


All the TCs fit so long as you keep the lens near 300mm (which is basically where you;d want it when using a TC anyway).



Jul 30, 2013 at 03:33 AM
Ian.Dobinson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


I used to be of the opinion that the 70-200/4 IS was THE one to go for .
to me the 70-300L didnt seem much point . it has the the SAME MFD and the SAME magnification , so if you shoot anything at closer range (not talking just MFD here) then your basicly using the same focal length as the 70-200 anyway (and loosing a stop in the process)
But the 70-300 is significantly better at close range to make it the more viable lens .

as for the extra width I think people were getting lenses mixed up (not sure where the .2mm was comming from)

the 70-200/4 IS is 76mm wide , the 70-300L is 13mm wider @ 89mm so it is a 'fatty' . its even 5mm thicker than my 80-200L .
its also a fair bit heavier than the 70-200L by 290g (the MDP is 280g more )
so if size and weight are a consideration then the 70-200/4 IS is a better bet .

Im currently looking for a more carry friendly option . I love my MDP to bits but its not being used much as I have the 120-300 OS (not 'S') which is fantastic when I want long and fast but is not the sort of lens that packs as a carry round option . the MDP is just on the 'to heavy' side and the lack of IS and modern AF sometimes go against its use . (dont like to use the MDP in Servo mode )
Im still trying to decide but Im coming down on the 70-300L side of things



Jul 30, 2013 at 04:15 AM
outlawyer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


Ian.Dobinson wrote

Im currently looking for a more carry friendly option . I love my MDP to bits but its not being used much as I have the 120-300 OS (not 'S') which is fantastic when I want long and fast but is not the sort of lens that packs as a carry round option . the MDP is just on the 'to heavy' side and the lack of IS and modern AF sometimes go against its use . (dont like to use the MDP in Servo mode )
Im still trying to decide but Im coming down on the 70-300L
...Show more

Same boat. MDP is excellent enough for exclusive tripod use, but somewhat unwieldy and, lacking IS (it really hurts to concede this), simply antiquated in comparison to more modern and more portable alternatives. 70-300 is growing on me as well, and when the disgustingly talented Lars Johnsson speaks so highly of it, one is well- advised to listen.



Jul 30, 2013 at 06:59 AM
Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


Ian.Dobinson wrote:
I used to be of the opinion that the 70-200/4 IS was THE one to go for .
to me the 70-300L didnt seem much point . it has the the SAME MFD and the SAME magnification , so if you shoot anything at closer range (not talking just MFD here) then your basicly using the same focal length as the 70-200 anyway (and loosing a stop in the process)
But the 70-300 is significantly better at close range to make it the more viable lens .

as for the extra width I think people were getting lenses mixed up (not
...Show more

I think you got it mixed up The 0,2 mm was when "safcraft" compared it to the 70-200/2,8 lens. And all the specs have been posted before in the thread. Here is a copy of it.

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



Jul 30, 2013 at 09:25 AM
Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


Here are the two lenses. I don't even bother to include the 70-200/2,8 IS II in the comparison. It's a lot larger than these lenses.
http://www.pbase.com/larsjohnsson/image/151591000/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/larsjohnsson/image/151590998/original.jpg



Jul 30, 2013 at 10:01 AM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


Nice Lars, that should quiet those too lazy to actually look the lenses up .

On another note, I'm almost considering the 70-300L instead of saving up for a 70-200/2.8 IS II and 1.4x III; hard to decide, really, but it does look like the quality of the 70-300L at MM would be kind to extension tubes for occasional macro work, and the resulting sale of a 100L and 70-300 non-L would be able to hold me over quicker, and I could keep the 85/1.8 for fast short tele and tight portrait work.



Jul 30, 2013 at 10:29 AM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


johnctharp wrote:
hard to decide, really, but it does look like the quality of the 70-300L at MM would be kind to extension tubes for occasional macro work, and the resulting sale of a 100L and 70-300 non-L would be able to hold me over quicker, and I could keep the 85/1.8 for fast short tele and tight portrait work.


Keep in mind that the AF goes to pieces if you put extension tubes on the 70-300L while it still works if you put them on the 70-200s. Although I supposed the close up lens filters might make sense for this focal length for macro power anyway and that shouldn't alter the AF.


Edited on Jul 30, 2013 at 04:26 PM · View previous versions



Jul 30, 2013 at 03:53 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS vs Canon 70-300 L IS


skibum5 wrote:
Keep in mind that the AF goes to pieces if you put extension tubes on the 70-300L while it still works if you put them on the 70-200s. Although I supposed the close up lens filters might make sense for this focal length for macro power anyway and that shouldn't alter the AF.


I've picked up on that- but I'd be using the 70-200/2.8 with a TC, or the 70-300 without.

The bigger difference to me isn't the price, so much as the difference between the absolute quality of the 70-200, and the versatility of the 70-300. I could really only ever afford one, and being able to hit F/2.8 up to 200mm along with F/4 at 280mm makes a lot of sense; with the 1.4x III, the 70-200+1.4 at 280mm is sharper than the 70-300 at 300mm according to TDP's comparison charts.



Jul 30, 2013 at 04:15 PM
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       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.