Canon 70-300is vs 70-200 f2.8-comparable?
Discussion
ssray said:
as funds don`t allow for a s/h 70-200f2.8, would a 70-300is be a good point to start until I can save for the big one?
Cheers Ray
I've never owned a 70-200 but I did have a 100-400 for a while. It produced excellent images but was too big and heavy for a lightwieght snapper like me so i traded down to a 70-300 which I have found to be excellent. Produces really good images and is very useable - in decent light it's probably all you'd need. Make sure you try a 70-200 f2.8 before buying it as I believe it's very heavy (although it's a generally excellent lens and many swear by it).Cheers Ray
ssray said:
as funds don`t allow for a s/h 70-200f2.8, would a 70-300is be a good point to start until I can save for the big one?
Cheers Ray
70-300IS is an OK consumer zoom. At its best 70-200, soft at 300 wide open.Cheers Ray
Doesnt have proper ring USM so wont focus as fast or as quiet as the 70-200.
It is ofcourse a lot slower than the 70-200/2.8 and slower than the f4 variant too, and wont take a teleconvertor.
A used 70-200f4L would be a similar price to a new 70-300IS I think.
The 70-300 USM IS is a decent lens, but it has reportedly had a number of problems over its lifetime with a weird problem regarding softeness in portrait orientation which required a recall. Mine was one of them and was serviced and recalibrated but I'm still not happy with it in portrait. As others have said, it's a clunky design and the USM is weak excuse from the marketing department for what is essentially a micro-motor. The front element moves as it focuses and is a pain if you use graduated or circular polarizers. It's not as noisy as some of the cheaper non-USM Canon lenses but it's not far off.
Canon recently released a 70-300 IS L lens that I had a chance to test out for a prolonged period. It's a wonderful lens and is one of the lightest L telephoto lenses. Doesn't offer a constant aperture but has better construction, is fast, silent, and most importantly, very sharp! If you don't need the f/2.8 aperture (I think this had 4.0 to 5.6), then I'd certainly give this a look-in since it offers the extra reach.
Canon recently released a 70-300 IS L lens that I had a chance to test out for a prolonged period. It's a wonderful lens and is one of the lightest L telephoto lenses. Doesn't offer a constant aperture but has better construction, is fast, silent, and most importantly, very sharp! If you don't need the f/2.8 aperture (I think this had 4.0 to 5.6), then I'd certainly give this a look-in since it offers the extra reach.
I have a 70-300 f4-5.6 IS - I've been pretty happy with it, but I'm plotting to upgrade to a 70-200 f4L IS or 70-300 F4-5.6L IS .
If you're looking to get the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS lens as an interim measure until you can afford what you really want - I'd mirror the advice above to go for a EF-S 55-250 instead, comparable IQ by all accounts but half the price at the expense of being a bit more plastic.
If you're looking to get the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS lens as an interim measure until you can afford what you really want - I'd mirror the advice above to go for a EF-S 55-250 instead, comparable IQ by all accounts but half the price at the expense of being a bit more plastic.
Not so interested now.Aye, at around £1150, it's not cheap but then there's rarely ever a cheap Canon L lens. I wouldn't imagine there'd be many used examples out there either for another year or so, or until a Mk2 comes out. I did consider financing it through Jessops sine they offer 0% interest over 12 months with a minimal 10% deposit.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff