70-200f/4 IS L + 1.4tc or 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS L?

Started Jan 22, 2013 | Discussions thread
crazybadger
Senior MemberPosts: 1,318Gear list
Like?
Re: 70-200f/4 IS L + 1.4tc or 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS L?
In reply to joger, Jan 25, 2013

joger wrote:

crazybadger wrote:

. . . So why am I getting "upset". Sorry about that. Uncalled for. Just I am going through the process of updating some equipement right now and every time you ask a question concerning this lens/camera or that, the feedback from the actual users often gets drowned out by the "spec sheet gurus" who state "facts" about this function or that function based solely off the spec sheets, without ever backing it up . . .

you won't get good information from 1st hand owners who made their decision earlier too. Call it cognitive dissonance!!

People who buy e.g. a 70-300 L and sell their 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM have a clear opinion - because what they did can't be wrong - right?

e.g. I own a 300 f/2.8 II and a 70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM and I had a 100-400 for test purpose and the difference in image quality is undoubtedly visible in my shots on the 5D II

The 70-300 is not dramatically (if at all) better at 300 mm compare to the 100-400 at 300 mm - many tests proof that.

Wishful thinking is a huge portion of the equation of people. You don't need to be a psyxhologist to understand that.

Based upon the mtf graphs it is easy to judge technically what makes sense and what can be dismissed. That's not telling you the quality of the bokeh or any other non mtf relevant data like weight, shape, mechanical quality . . .

I'd not tust budget limited fanboys who base their decision on wishful thinking.

That said - I am sure the 70-300 is 'good enough' - so is the 28-300 from Nikon and so are many other lenses.

If you spend your money make sure you evaluate first based on the theoretical assumptions and then rent the two or three last contenders and select the one that suits over all best but please don't freak out about extra 100 mm and accept lower image quality and say this is a good choice.

If you really need 300 mm focal length a 300 f/2.8 II is sufrely the best choice as of today and maybe for many years to come but if you rather seldom use it go for a solution that suits also your wallet and quality aspects.

I just want to motivate people for 'out of the box thinking'

If you ignore the 3rd party tests and their procedures you're surely less informed - but if you take them into consideration and you make your own tests it is surely a good source for a well defined decision

-- hide signature --

__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

OK...what ever joger.

I really can't be bothered with this anymore. Yes you win. Oh my lying eyes. I guess I should bow to the test results and stop believing what I, and everyone else who has used the lens, have seen. Wow...thank you for helping me (amd the rest of the users on this forum) see the light. We should only follow test scores of users who have never used the equipement. Forgive me while I go and sell all my canon gear to replace it with nikon and sony...after all don't their sensors have better dxo scores lately?

Just one last thought though. If your argument is that only those who haven't bought a lens are capable of judging it, because once you put the money down you are bias? Could that possibly explain your attitude? You after all have paid money for the 70-200 and have said in other threads that "it is the perfect lens" if I recall. So is it possible it is you who are showing a fanboy-like bias?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow