New 70-300mm L lens. Anyone tried it?
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
Depends if you need reach or speed.
(he said helpfully!)
If it's allied to a 7D with apparently highly usable ISO up to 3200 or more, I doubt speed will be an issue with the 70-300. I'm more wondering whether to be concerned about DOF. Given that I'll always have f2.8 or faster at portrait lengths, I'm not sure if I really need to worry about it at this length.(he said helpfully!)
I dont really see the point in the new 70-300 L lens, if it was an f/4 lens then maybe, but if you wanted a long lens why would you buy this over the 100-400L, or if you didnt neeed the reach surley the 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-200 non-IS would be a better bet, being faster,(probably) sharper and cheaper.
I think had this been a 70-300mm f/4 there would be a lot more point to it, but personally its not a lens i would be interested in. when i do upgrade my long lens (sigma 120-400), which is a little way off tbh as there are a few other things to buy first! I'm thinking i would cover the focal range i would be loosing with a 70-200 f/4 non-IS, and either a 400mm f/5.6 or a 300mm f/4 with 1.4x converter.
I spend too much time mentally spending money i dont have!
I think had this been a 70-300mm f/4 there would be a lot more point to it, but personally its not a lens i would be interested in. when i do upgrade my long lens (sigma 120-400), which is a little way off tbh as there are a few other things to buy first! I'm thinking i would cover the focal range i would be loosing with a 70-200 f/4 non-IS, and either a 400mm f/5.6 or a 300mm f/4 with 1.4x converter.
I spend too much time mentally spending money i dont have!
Edited by jimmy156 on Thursday 9th December 18:27
Kermit power said:
Looking at this vs the new 70-200 L IS.
On the plus side there's an extra 100mm on the zoom length and £400 off the price.
On the minus side, it's f4 - 5.6 rather than f2.8.
Has anyone tried one? Do the extra 1-2 stops on the 70-200 outweigh the extra reach and cost saving?
Can't help on the new ones as went for s/hand mk1 f2.8 70-200L and x2 Ext as tbh rarely need anything above 200 other than the odd motorsport event which I'll risk that it'll be in good light to be able to use the Ext or shoot 200 and crop. I guess it depends if you will really need the reach or prefer option of shallower DoF. Here's a few shots for comparison (on 40D)On the plus side there's an extra 100mm on the zoom length and £400 off the price.
On the minus side, it's f4 - 5.6 rather than f2.8.
Has anyone tried one? Do the extra 1-2 stops on the 70-200 outweigh the extra reach and cost saving?
Shelby Mustang f2.8 by injury_time, on Flickr
Shelby Mustang f5.6 by injury_time, on Flickr
with x2EXT
70-200mm f2.8L IS MkI EX x2 MkII 400mm Drifting by injury_time, on Flickr
70-200mm f2.8L IS MkI Crop2xEXTMII by injury_time, on Flickr
100% Crop
Shelby Mustang GT500 f2.8 100% crop Shelby Mustang f2.8 70-200mm f2.8L IS MkI by injury_time, on Flickr
jimmy156 said:
I dont really see the point in the new 70-300 L lens, if it was an f/4 lens then maybe
An f4 lens would be much bigger and more expensive. And its expensive enough as it is.It looks a lot sharper than the old 70-300, its sharper than the 70-200f4IS over the same focal length but odly the 70-200 is sharper with a 1.4tc at 200-300!?
I cant imagine bokeh or CA is good though, less exotic glass etc.
Its small and light (ish) make a good travel zoom.
dblack1 said:
I haven't tried the lens, but it would help to know what kinda shots you plan to make with the lens.
I don't have any one particular thing I'm planning on. One day might be candid street shots or architectural close-ups, whilst another might be getting shots of fish eagles getting food out of ponds at a falconry display.Thinking about it a little more, the main frustration I've had with my Sigma 70-200, especially in the last of the above categories is that 200mm can be too short for what I want, but you can guarantee that as soon as I put a 2x extender on it, 140mm won't be wide enough for the next shot that presents itself!!
I suppose I should maybe more be considering the 100-400mm, but the notion of the push-pull zoom is really off-putting. What on earth possessed Canon to come up with a zoom mechanism different to pretty much every other lens out there?
Dogsey said:
I'll throw another candidate into the mix for you then, Sigma's 100-300mm f4 EX, I love mine.
Hmm.. Hadn't even considered that. Looking on Fred Miranda it's very well rated. Interestingly, on a look down the first page of reviews, almost everyone seems to be raving about them against Nikon equivalents. Being a Canon user, I don't know if that's because this lens is particularly good, or because the Nikon equivalents are bad?Kermit power said:
Dogsey said:
I'll throw another candidate into the mix for you then, Sigma's 100-300mm f4 EX, I love mine.
Hmm.. Hadn't even considered that. Looking on Fred Miranda it's very well rated. Interestingly, on a look down the first page of reviews, almost everyone seems to be raving about them against Nikon equivalents. Being a Canon user, I don't know if that's because this lens is particularly good, or because the Nikon equivalents are bad?Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff