Upgrading to EF 70-200 F4 L IS from EF 70-300 IS
Discussion
I'm deleriously happy with my new 7D and particularly with the EF-S 15-85 lens that came with it. Just blown away by the sharpness, colour and contrast of the lens - AF is fast, accurate and quiet and IS seems to do what it's supposed to - just fab.
Problem is that I'm not quite so impressed with my trusty EF 70-300 IS on the 7D, even though this lens has served me well on my 400D for several years and I'd previously considered it my best lens. It's not that there's anything wrong with it - it's just that the 15-85 outclasses it in terms of sharpness and colour.
The obvious choice would be to replace the 70-300 with one of the 70-200 Ls, probably the f4 IS and maybe a 1.4x extender. I only use the telezoom for about 20% of my shots so the upgrade cost would be a big deal for something that I don't use all the time.
Interested in opinions of anyone whose gone from a 70-300 IS to a 70-200 and whether you felt the extra IQ was worth the £s.
Problem is that I'm not quite so impressed with my trusty EF 70-300 IS on the 7D, even though this lens has served me well on my 400D for several years and I'd previously considered it my best lens. It's not that there's anything wrong with it - it's just that the 15-85 outclasses it in terms of sharpness and colour.
The obvious choice would be to replace the 70-300 with one of the 70-200 Ls, probably the f4 IS and maybe a 1.4x extender. I only use the telezoom for about 20% of my shots so the upgrade cost would be a big deal for something that I don't use all the time.
Interested in opinions of anyone whose gone from a 70-300 IS to a 70-200 and whether you felt the extra IQ was worth the £s.
I never had a 70-300 (I had the 55-250) but have a 70-200 F4 IS L and it is sharper than a sharp thing and works a treat with the 1.4 extender II to the point that when flipping through photos taken with and without the extender I have to check the exif to see which ones were taken with. It is also light enough to carry all day and is exceedingly quick to focus. I've used it on night rallies with flash and never missed the extra stop or extra weight of the 2.8 and need the weather sealing of the non-IS.
Have you been through the micro adjustments so you can eliminate small errors in sharpness in all of your lens by correcting it in the camera so the next time you put that lens on the camera it automatically knows how to modify the AF.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/c...
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/c...
I use a 70-200mm F4 IS on my 7, and it's a fantastic combination. Brilliantly sharp, colour constrasts are spot on and the AF is quick. It's not a heavy combination either.
I'm looking at upgrading to the 2.8 IS, only because I shoot alot of football under floodlights, and that's where you really notice the F4 starting to struggle.
TBH, the F4 is so good otherwise, I'll keep it alongside the 2.8 where I don't want the weight to carry.
Edited to add this:
This was shot using the F4 and 7D.
I'm looking at upgrading to the 2.8 IS, only because I shoot alot of football under floodlights, and that's where you really notice the F4 starting to struggle.
TBH, the F4 is so good otherwise, I'll keep it alongside the 2.8 where I don't want the weight to carry.
Edited to add this:
This was shot using the F4 and 7D.
Edited by minky monkey on Thursday 6th January 18:47
I upgraded from the non-IS version of this lens to the 70-200 F4 L IS about 3 years ago, much much better lens, there is no comparison in image quality. This was on my old camera, I haven't tried the old lens on my 7D, but I imagine I would see the same difference. Hopefully you will see the same.
I have the 70-200 F4L (non IS) on my 50D
It feels solid, zoom/focus rings feel good, focus is seriously quick, and sharpness at F4 is pretty much perfect. Seriously - it's not worth stopping down, it doesn't (can't?) get sharper.
I've heard a few times that the IS version is even sharper... I don't see how it can be, but it sounds good
It feels solid, zoom/focus rings feel good, focus is seriously quick, and sharpness at F4 is pretty much perfect. Seriously - it's not worth stopping down, it doesn't (can't?) get sharper.
I've heard a few times that the IS version is even sharper... I don't see how it can be, but it sounds good
I took my 70-200 f4 IS with 1.4x on my 40D on Safari last May. Blown away with the quality and sharpness. I am now considering an upgrade to the f2.8 version.
Some samples:
Elephant in Long Grass by xrrr, on Flickr
Red Lechwe Antelope by xrrr, on Flickr
Lilac-Breasted Roller on a Branch by xrrr, on Flickr
Some samples:
Elephant in Long Grass by xrrr, on Flickr
Red Lechwe Antelope by xrrr, on Flickr
Lilac-Breasted Roller on a Branch by xrrr, on Flickr
I used a 100-400 at Le Mans last year and it was very good indeed.
The upside was the big range, very flexible and seemed good quality.
The downside was the weight, very heavy to walk around with, the push pull zoom is not to everyone's liking (although it didn't bother me) and it is a big old monster.
I looked through the exif data for my shots at Le Mans and found I rarely went much above 200mm so went for a 70-200 F4 IS L instead, and a 1.4 extender II for times when I need some extra reach. This is a lot lighter to spend a day panning with, a lot smaller to go in my kit bag and got all the shots I need. I do lose the long end of the 100-400 but that for my uses hasn't been an issue, plus I get weathersealing which I need and the newer IS system which is good for more stops than the 100-400's system.
The upside was the big range, very flexible and seemed good quality.
The downside was the weight, very heavy to walk around with, the push pull zoom is not to everyone's liking (although it didn't bother me) and it is a big old monster.
I looked through the exif data for my shots at Le Mans and found I rarely went much above 200mm so went for a 70-200 F4 IS L instead, and a 1.4 extender II for times when I need some extra reach. This is a lot lighter to spend a day panning with, a lot smaller to go in my kit bag and got all the shots I need. I do lose the long end of the 100-400 but that for my uses hasn't been an issue, plus I get weathersealing which I need and the newer IS system which is good for more stops than the 100-400's system.
The key thing about getting decent shots out of the 100-400L is light. You need good light to get the best out of it.
At the long end, it's a 5.6 lens. Now, I find on mine, that I get better/sharper results with an apperture of around 7.1 to 8. Anything less, and there is a noticable fall in IQ.
I'll use it on the football pitch, and get good shoots but the minute the light drops, I change it.
At the long end, it's a 5.6 lens. Now, I find on mine, that I get better/sharper results with an apperture of around 7.1 to 8. Anything less, and there is a noticable fall in IQ.
I'll use it on the football pitch, and get good shoots but the minute the light drops, I change it.
thanks for the comments chaps,
at the moment I have a 400d and a 70 to 300 is, some of the shots come out very well (well 1 in 100).
I plan to upgrade to a 7d and was wondering about a lens, I go to silverstone a fair bit, will 200mm on a cropped sensor be long enough? will it still be sharp at max zoom?
The weather proofing is a factor for me, is the 400 not weather proofed?
sorry for all the questions.
at the moment I have a 400d and a 70 to 300 is, some of the shots come out very well (well 1 in 100).
I plan to upgrade to a 7d and was wondering about a lens, I go to silverstone a fair bit, will 200mm on a cropped sensor be long enough? will it still be sharp at max zoom?
The weather proofing is a factor for me, is the 400 not weather proofed?
sorry for all the questions.
onesmallstep said:
thanks for the comments chaps,
at the moment I have a 400d and a 70 to 300 is, some of the shots come out very well (well 1 in 100).
I plan to upgrade to a 7d and was wondering about a lens, I go to silverstone a fair bit, will 200mm on a cropped sensor be long enough? will it still be sharp at max zoom?
The weather proofing is a factor for me, is the 400 not weather proofed?
sorry for all the questions.
I used a 400D before I got my 7D last year. I think you will find the 400D is not weather proof... I used a shower cap whenever I was out in the rain. Though if it ever the rain got heavy I tended to put my gear back in the bag..at the moment I have a 400d and a 70 to 300 is, some of the shots come out very well (well 1 in 100).
I plan to upgrade to a 7d and was wondering about a lens, I go to silverstone a fair bit, will 200mm on a cropped sensor be long enough? will it still be sharp at max zoom?
The weather proofing is a factor for me, is the 400 not weather proofed?
sorry for all the questions.
As regards 200mm being long enough at silverstone.... I have been there twice now with my various cameras but both with my 70-200... Providing you find a decent viewpoint you can get some good photos.
Below two examples... Both are crops of the original files
Taken with a 400D+70-200
Taken with a 7D+70-200
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff