I will point out that the 70-300 DO does have several advantages over the 70-300 IS. It is smaller and more compact. The front element doesn't rotate. And the AF speed is much better. --c
It looks to me the differences at 70mm are neglible across the board. The 200mm results are enlightening. The 70-300 is close, but I think the 70-200 4 is better. At 300, all I can say is I want the 300 4 IS!!!
I am considering this lens also, and it did perform pretty well. I am still not sure though. I wish I had not seen the 300 4 IS pictures. I had thought my first really expensive lens was going to be the 100-400 IS, but now I am not sure. That purchase is a couple of years away though, so I have plenty of time to change my mind a few hundred times.
The 70-200/4 has more detail.
To me, looks like you aplied some noise Ninja to the 70-300 IS shots. I know you didn't do it but this is how I can see them on my monitor. Contrast and color look OK.
One thing I hate is the:
Full Time Manual focus is not provided, you must switch the lens to MF mode to manually focus the lens. To make matters worse, the 70-300 extends about 1" with focusing. To park the lens compactly, you often must adjust the focus to minimize the lens length. This means manually turning AF off, turning the focus ring to retract the lens and turning AF back on so you don't forget next time you use the lens. Of course, if you don't care about minimizing the lens length, this attribute will not affect your enjoyment of this lens. (The-Digital-Picture.com)
oh well I will take this lens with me always......some candid shots!
I'm considering these two lenses also. Since the 70-300 seem suite promising.
But as I own the 75-300 and not happy with the focus speed, the length of the lens variy with zoom, rotating front element, The Sigma is tempting.
But I like to see a shoot-out between the two, because optical quality can't be beat in the final picture.
Those who can’t decide between 70-200F4L and the new 70-300IS (NOT DO) can do this simple test: Using high-end printer and paper, print non-copyrighted, 100%-crop, side-by-side-comparison images of the two lenses at 192 dpi, which is equivalent to enlarging an 8.2MP photo to 12 X 18 (305 X 457mm) double-page spread for many magazines and books, and see if you can notice any difference. Then sharpen the softer image (sometimes 70-200F4L) using Photoshop Sharpen filter once, print and check again.
I’ve found the difference in sharpness between the two lenses is just too tiny to notice, but the difference in range is HUGE in comparison. Then there is Image Stabilizer, which also makes a big difference.
This picture of Yosemite storm clouds was taken beyond the range of 70-200F4L at 1/125 second handheld this past Thanksgiving weekend. With the storm rolling in fast and the sky dark, I only had seconds to capture this image before the peaks disappeared behind the clouds. The picture turned out very sharp. At time like this, IS and extra range made all the difference in the world. BTW, which lens you'd rather carry, climbing up a steep trail?
A.Y. wrote:
. At time like this, IS and extra range made all the difference in the world. BTW, which lens you'd rather carry, climbing up a steep trail?
I have to agree with you on the IS, just got my first F2.8 zoom non IS & I can still take sharper pics in extrem low light with the 70-300 at 1/8s sharp as a tack , the F2.8 lens needs at least 1/50s to get a decent shot, handheld
BTW, which lens you'd rather carry, climbing up a steep trail?
Believe it or not... the 70-200 f/4L and 70-300 IS are not far apart in terms of dimensions. The 70-300 IS is a little shorter, but extends when focusing. The two are within 10% of each other for weight. --c
As for the earlier side-by-side comparisons: these are likely done at close focusing ranges. You'll find that for subjects farther away, the comparison will be quite different. Also, the 28-300 would likely be closer in focal length. Some lenses change considerably in focal length when focusing close. Wether this matters to you or not depends on the subjects you want to shoot.
charlesk wrote:
BTW, which lens you'd rather carry, climbing up a steep trail?
Believe it or not... the 70-200 f/4L and 70-300 IS are not far apart in terms of dimensions. The 70-300 IS is a little shorter, but extends when focusing. The two are within 10% of each other for weight. --c
