rscheffler wrote:
Thanks for the link Andy. I\'ve been curious about the 70-300L for some time, but was kind of put off by the initial price point. I\'ve been shooting sports with the 70-200 f/4L IS since it came out back around 2007 and have been very happy with it. At the time its AF was faster and I was getting better AF consistency from it than with the f/2.8 IS version. And it works pretty well with the 1.4x TC. But from the reviews I\'ve read about the 70-300, it seems to surpass the f/4L IS + 1.4x TC combo. Just wish it was still f/4 at 200mm. I have a 300 f/4L IS that I hardly use, so perhaps I should sell it and give the 70-300 a shot...
Oh it easily surpasses the 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC, much faster AF and better image quality.
And contrary to CL\'s guesses in that link that it\'s plasticky and poorly sealed, it\'s rather substantial and heavy for a variable 70-300L, fully weather sealed, and one of the few Canon lenses that makes full use of the new 5D3/1DX ultra-precision AF (at least with center point in stills, probably not for other points and not sure about for AI Servo). HMm someone there says PRM gives it props, not bad to get props from him.
Although the AF on the 70-200 f/4 IS tested faster than on my 70-200 2.8 non-IS on some made up tests, for some reason it would sometimes do this slow thing where it sort of freeze now and then at inopportune times here and there and my 2.8 non-IS did not. f/4 was also not good for night at less than pro fields or for indoors, once I stopped doing indoors I did switch to f/4 IS though since it was nice for travel and general stuff and I could get by with it for a wide field day lens and I sold the 2.8 non-IS+70-300 nonL combo for it. FOr pure sports I liked the 2,8 non-IS better.
I recently sold the f/4 IS and have just the 70-300L now. TC swapping is a lot more time consuming than lens swapping and it\'s a real pain, nice to have the TC built in as it were. You do lose fixed f/4 which means if you use M mode you are locked at f/5.6 across entire range though. It\'s a great general purpose lens, compact enough to fix in cargo shorts pocket and stash away on vacations, has nice built-in reach and size for times shooting with no press pass, it was sharper at 70mm a trace sharper at 200mm less sharp at 135mmm noticeably sharper 201mm+ compared to f/4 IS and f/4 IS+TC.
Ideally I\'d still pair a big lens + a 70-200 2.8 and not an f/4 IS or 70-300 for pure sports shooting, but it\'s enough to get by, the AF is very good and same for image quality, it\'s only the aperture that is slow and variable. And for the times when you might want a single lens solution 70-200 just isn\'t enough at all for field stuff and with the TC on those AF more slowly and have worse image quality (well have not tried the 2.8 IS II to be fair) so it might be best for that (some say sigma 100-300 f/4 is nice though?).
At one point I used a 300 f/4 non-IS. Nice and light and easy to wield (the 300 2.8 IS is harder to start and stop on a dime due to the mass of it). Slower and not quite as good AF as the 300 2.8 IS though and f/4 is rough on poorly lit fields.
Aug 14, 2012 at 01:37 AM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #10881018 « 70-300mm f/4-5.6L for sports? »
