Reading mode: Light Dark

70-200 f 4.0 instead of 70-300 D0

Go to last post
Barbados said:
Initially I posted the following several days ago:

"I have searched the Forums and not found much on the 70-300 DO.
Was all set to get the 70-200 2.8 since I use only ambient light
and shoot hand held. Then I started to evaluate the 70-300. Since I
do a lot of candid, on the fly, hand held portraits in remote
places in the world, maybe the weight and size of the 70-300 are an
advantage. I've already got a Canon 16-35 f 2.8 and the 24-70 f
2.8. I love the build quality of these. I did use a 28-135mm for
years but now am spoiled by the L quality and most of all the fixed
2.8.

However, the white L lens is big, heavy, and may scare people off.
Click to expand...
People will definitely notice. When I shot with a black 75-300mm IS and slim 70-200L F4 it's not so intimidating. I can blend in with the crowd when using a 75-300mm IS. But when I pull out the 100-400L IS which looks big (lie the 70-200L 2.8), especially when extended, it gets peoples attention...I prefer it didn't but thankfully I use it mostly for wildlife which doesn't seem to care what lens you're using.
Barbados said:
They are much likely not to notice or to mind a smaller black,
70-300. I'm probably more likely to carry and use the smaller
70-300. Yet somehow I feel I will be compromising in quality. I
won't carry a monopod or tripod though.

I'm leaning towards the 70-300 DO for now though, because of the
practicalities.
Click to expand...
I used a 75-300mm IS on a previous vacation and the reach and IS came in handy for a wildlife shot (moose early morning on road). In the past I have also seldom used a tripod or mono-pod (thinking about both for some wildlife) and relied on good light or IS. I have the 70-200L F4 and really like the image quality but when the shutter speed gets down to about 1/80 - 1/60 and below I may start to experience some shake. You do have fast glass for low light situation but nothing long....so this si where the DO with IS may fill a niche. I don't know about the DO IS image quality but is it the 70-200L F4 that much better to not give up IS and the extra 100mm? Although with the 70-200L F4 you can add a Tamron 1.4x (very slim) for about $80 USD in good light when you need the extra reach.
Barbados said:
Any thoughts from someone who does travel photos?

My galleries are on http://www.pbase.com/barbados ."

Up date on 1/1/05: Thanks to multiple replies and reconsidering the
weight of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS I've now decided on the 70-200 f/2.8.

I've seen the posts and samples of the 70-300 DO, read the reviews
and the testing on Luminous Landscape and find it not sharp enough.
I don't want to compromise on image quality. That would be more
impt to me than the additional reach. Unfortunately, my local
camera shop doesn't rent out this lens. I can "try it out" on my
camera out on the street head to head with the 70-200 f 4.0 but
can't hope to reproduce the sort of shooting conditions I want to
use it in in the middle of a dreary, rainy Portland, OR winter.

So, I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f/4.0. Last call for anyone who
uses the 70-300 DO for people type portraits, hand held in ambient
light before I plunk down the credit card for thie 70-200 f4.0 next
week.

--

Click to expand...
--

I know you mean well but please do not link my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.

http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/nova_scotia_summer_2004
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/digital_rebel_birds
 
Martyn, please don't tell me that hiring sherpas to carry my camera bag has become politically incorrect.
 
That is an amazing picture with the flowers.

Bravo
Patch said:
Barbados said:
However, the white L lens is big, heavy, and may scare people off.
They are much likely not to notice or to mind a smaller black,
70-300. I'm probably more likely to carry and use the smaller
70-300.
Click to expand...
I'll admit that taking the 70-200 f/4 out places, I always get
comments on it. And with the lens hood on, it is pretty big, but
my friend has the 2.8 version, and it's just too big and heavy for
my likes, and twice the price. I'm very happy with the f/4 version.




  • Phil
Click to expand...
--
http://bluedust.deviantart.com/
 
Ife Emeribe said:
That is an amazing picture with the flowers.
Click to expand...
Yeah, now I can't wait for Tulip Festival season in May to put my 70-200L F4 to use. I like the image quality and DOF look there.
Ife Emeribe said:
Bravo
Patch said:
Barbados said:
However, the white L lens is big, heavy, and may scare people off.
They are much likely not to notice or to mind a smaller black,
70-300. I'm probably more likely to carry and use the smaller
70-300.
Click to expand...
I'll admit that taking the 70-200 f/4 out places, I always get
comments on it. And with the lens hood on, it is pretty big, but
my friend has the 2.8 version, and it's just too big and heavy for
my likes, and twice the price. I'm very happy with the f/4 version.

http://maland.smugmug.com/photos/12863640-O.jpg

http://maland.smugmug.com/photos/3369054-O.jpg
  • Phil
Click to expand...
--
http://bluedust.deviantart.com/
Click to expand...
--

I know you mean well but please do not link my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.

http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/nova_scotia_summer_2004
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/digital_rebel_birds
 
By all means hire a sherpa... I was able to use a 100-400 (similar length to 70-200) but didn't like the size or weight. The DO's combination of near L image quality, resistance to CA and discrete size were decisive factors.
$$Policy$$ said:
Martyn, please don't tell me that hiring sherpas to carry my camera
bag has become politically incorrect.
Click to expand...
 
Barbados said:
Initially I posted the following several days ago:

"I have searched the Forums and not found much on the 70-300 DO.
Was all set to get the 70-200 2.8 since I use only ambient light
and shoot hand held. Then I started to evaluate the 70-300. Since I
do a lot of candid, on the fly, hand held portraits in remote
places in the world, maybe the weight and size of the 70-300 are an
advantage. I've already got a Canon 16-35 f 2.8 and the 24-70 f
2.8. I love the build quality of these. I did use a 28-135mm for
years but now am spoiled by the L quality and most of all the fixed
2.8.

However, the white L lens is big, heavy, and may scare people off.
They are much likely not to notice or to mind a smaller black,
70-300. I'm probably more likely to carry and use the smaller
70-300. Yet somehow I feel I will be compromising in quality. I
won't carry a monopod or tripod though.

I'm leaning towards the 70-300 DO for now though, because of the
practicalities.

Any thoughts from someone who does travel photos?

My galleries are on http://www.pbase.com/barbados ."

Up date on 1/1/05: Thanks to multiple replies and reconsidering the
weight of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS I've now decided on the 70-200 f/2.8.

I've seen the posts and samples of the 70-300 DO, read the reviews
and the testing on Luminous Landscape and find it not sharp enough.
I don't want to compromise on image quality. That would be more
impt to me than the additional reach. Unfortunately, my local
camera shop doesn't rent out this lens. I can "try it out" on my
camera out on the street head to head with the 70-200 f 4.0 but
can't hope to reproduce the sort of shooting conditions I want to
use it in in the middle of a dreary, rainy Portland, OR winter.

So, I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f/4.0. Last call for anyone who
uses the 70-300 DO for people type portraits, hand held in ambient
light before I plunk down the credit card for thie 70-200 f4.0 next
week.
Click to expand...
Hi, I had the non-DO 70-300 IS for a while, and I was unhappy with the image quality. Bought the 70-200 f4/L and 300 f4/L IS to replace it. Both these lenses are very good, with great contrast and color. The 70-200 f4/L is "scary" sharp and pretty light as well. I agree with an earlier poster that it is not all that well balanced, so lens shake can become a problem in low light. I use a tripod a lot, so it's not much of a problem.

After reading most of the posts on this thread, I wonder why I didn't just but the 70-300 DO. It sounds like quite a nice lens. I post-process everything I shoot and wouldn't mind the extra sharpening that might be required for some of the DO images. I use Focus Magic which does a great job of de-compressing blur, and it sounds like the basic visual info is preserved by the DO lens.

Your photos are great, by the way. Since you don't use a tripod much, the low profile, IS, and small size of the DO could be really useful. Why not try it out, buy it a your local camera store and take it back if your not happy with it?

I lugged 10 pounds of camera and lenses up a steep rock yesterday. It might have been nice to have that DO.

I'm sure some one mentioned here somewhere, but with a slow connection Ill ask again. How is the DO image quality with the Canon 1.4 TC?

Good luck with your decision. Looks like you'll take great pictures regardless.

Cheers!
Pat
 
take some shots with it on your camera and take some very similar shots with your best lens immediately afterwards and compare. If the 70-300 is close in quality than I would say go for it as it is black and small and has more range. Only issue then is price and its stop or slow less. The 70-200 is fantastic but is more noticeable and is long with hood on - narrower than f2.8 version and lighter too - but long and obvious for a person set on taking lots of candids.

When you test it be sure to shoot some extreme contrast - bright chrome on a car on sunny day - white against black - that sort of thing to see how well ca is handled versus your 24-70 - as I see this as an L strong point.

I owned a 70-200f4 and would recommend it but for your purposes - maybe the 70-300 is better ??

Maybe you should consider a 135Lf2 instead ??

135 is not that far off 200 - but f2 is way wider than f4 or f5.6.

--
Jim

http://www.jim-kelly.com/
 
Barbados said:
As always, it's a trade off between the best image quality and
build quality of the lens and what will actually get used in the
streets, markets, villages and along the trails.
Click to expand...
If image quality isn't your number one priority wouldn't the DO make more sense? I know it did for me when I considered what you mentioned above. But that's the great thing about these lenses you can always sell them and try something else if you find it isn't everything you need.

RD
 
but I got the 70-200F4L cos 200 is usually the max I need and it's significantly cheaper than the DO. lack of IS is not that important because I generally take pics of moving subjects and I use external flash to freeze the subjects.

--

Check out some fashion shots I have taken: http://mpenza.clubsnap.org/gallery/fashion
 
Got a 20D (the d60 has a lot of miles on it) the 70-200mm f/4.0 plus the 50 f1.4. I don't shoot much on the longer end of the 200mm and figure I can always get a 1.4 TC in the future if my needs for reach change. I also don't do macros but do have a 25 extension tube and will play with the 50 f1.4 with that. I still don't use a tripod though. All ambient light, hand held travel type photos of people and markets and villages.
Barbados said:
Initially I posted the following several days ago:

"I have searched the Forums and not found much on the 70-300 DO.
Was all set to get the 70-200 2.8 since I use only ambient light
and shoot hand held. Then I started to evaluate the 70-300. Since I
do a lot of candid, on the fly, hand held portraits in remote
places in the world, maybe the weight and size of the 70-300 are an
advantage. I've already got a Canon 16-35 f 2.8 and the 24-70 f
2.8. I love the build quality of these. I did use a 28-135mm for
years but now am spoiled by the L quality and most of all the fixed
2.8.

However, the white L lens is big, heavy, and may scare people off.
They are much likely not to notice or to mind a smaller black,
70-300. I'm probably more likely to carry and use the smaller
70-300. Yet somehow I feel I will be compromising in quality. I
won't carry a monopod or tripod though.

I'm leaning towards the 70-300 DO for now though, because of the
practicalities.

Any thoughts from someone who does travel photos?

My galleries are on http://www.pbase.com/barbados ."

Up date on 1/1/05: Thanks to multiple replies and reconsidering the
weight of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS I've now decided on the 70-200 f/4.0.

I've seen the posts and samples of the 70-300 DO, read the reviews
and the testing on Luminous Landscape and find it not sharp enough.
I don't want to compromise on image quality. That would be more
impt to me than the additional reach. Unfortunately, my local
camera shop doesn't rent out this lens. I can "try it out" on my
camera out on the street head to head with the 70-200 f 4.0 but
can't hope to reproduce the sort of shooting conditions I want to
use it in in the middle of a dreary, rainy Portland, OR winter.

So, I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f/4.0. Last call for anyone who
uses the 70-300 DO for people type portraits, hand held in ambient
light before I plunk down the credit card for thie 70-200 f4.0 next
week.

--

Click to expand...
--

 
The 70-200/4L and 1.4 extender is a great combo, and at 280mm is sharper than the DO at 280mm at the same f stop.
Barbados said:
Barbados said:
Initially I posted the following several days ago:

"I have searched the Forums and not found much on the 70-300 DO.
Was all set to get the 70-200 2.8 since I use only ambient light
and shoot hand held. Then I started to evaluate the 70-300. Since I
do a lot of candid, on the fly, hand held portraits in remote
places in the world, maybe the weight and size of the 70-300 are an
advantage. I've already got a Canon 16-35 f 2.8 and the 24-70 f
2.8. I love the build quality of these. I did use a 28-135mm for
years but now am spoiled by the L quality and most of all the fixed
2.8.

However, the white L lens is big, heavy, and may scare people off.
They are much likely not to notice or to mind a smaller black,
70-300. I'm probably more likely to carry and use the smaller
70-300. Yet somehow I feel I will be compromising in quality. I
won't carry a monopod or tripod though.

I'm leaning towards the 70-300 DO for now though, because of the
practicalities.

Any thoughts from someone who does travel photos?

My galleries are on http://www.pbase.com/barbados ."

Up date on 1/1/05: Thanks to multiple replies and reconsidering the
weight of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS I've now decided on the 70-200 f/4.0.

I've seen the posts and samples of the 70-300 DO, read the reviews
and the testing on Luminous Landscape and find it not sharp enough.
I don't want to compromise on image quality. That would be more
impt to me than the additional reach. Unfortunately, my local
camera shop doesn't rent out this lens. I can "try it out" on my
camera out on the street head to head with the 70-200 f 4.0 but
can't hope to reproduce the sort of shooting conditions I want to
use it in in the middle of a dreary, rainy Portland, OR winter.

So, I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f/4.0. Last call for anyone who
uses the 70-300 DO for people type portraits, hand held in ambient
light before I plunk down the credit card for thie 70-200 f4.0 next
week.

--

Click to expand...
--

Click to expand...
--
----
Kit in profile. 'I can't let you do that Michael'
 
Barbados said:
Got a 20D (the d60 has a lot of miles on it) the 70-200mm f/4.0
plus the 50 f1.4. I don't shoot much on the longer end of the 200mm
and figure I can always get a 1.4 TC in the future if my needs for
reach change. I also don't do macros but do have a 25 extension
tube and will play with the 50 f1.4 with that. I still don't use a
tripod though. All ambient light, hand held travel type photos of
people and markets and villages.
Click to expand...
After kind of encouraging you to try the DO, I read some user reviews on Miranda's sites and somewhere else. There were a lot of complaints about poor bokeh and lens flare. With the 70-200 f4/L you won't have to worry about these issues as much. I think you will be really happy with this new lens.

Pat
 
Yes, I did a lot of reading of users' reviews and Fred Miranda's tests too. I also held both lenses on my camera but couldn't easilly do a lens test in rainy dreary wintertime Portland, OR and Pro Photo Supply didn't have either lens in the rental line up, so I couldn't take them out for a weekend and test them head to head anyway.

I finally decided that allthough the DO might be compact and it did have IS, I'd still always feel that I was compromising on the image quality when compared to the 70-200 f4.0. The flare issue and the softness worried me and the image samples that people were posting, while perhaps suited to their needs were not what I would want for my own images.

So I went for the 70-200 f4.0 and it's been wonderful so far. And with the money I "saved" I also got my first prime, a 50 f1.4 and that is one sweet lens.
elk13 said:
After kind of encouraging you to try the DO, I read some user
reviews on Miranda's sites and somewhere else. There were a lot of
complaints about poor bokeh and lens flare. With the 70-200 f4/L
you won't have to worry about these issues as much. I think you
will be really happy with this new lens.

Pat
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/barbados
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top