Difference in the 70-200mm range

Hi to all and thanks to the Dpreview team for helping with my registration.

I am looking into buying either the 70-200 4L or the 70-300 IS lens.

I have had a look in the relevant articles and threads, including http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=19010558

and the general picture I am getting is that the 70-300 has IS and a bigger range whereas the 70-200 has better build quality, USM and better image quality at f4.

1. What I have not understood from the threads is whether, after any necessary stopping down, the 70-200 lens has a general picture quality that is noticeably better than the 70-300 lens in the 70-200mm range. I usually shoot in plenty of light so stopping down is not a problem.

2. To get a similar range with the 70-200 lens I will need an 1.4x extender that will increase the cost of the package and degrade the picture quality. Will the quality of the picture end up being better or worse that the 70-300 in the 200-300mm range, taking into consideration the factor of the added cost as well?

I am also open to any other similarly priced sugestions.
Thanks in advance.

I was in the same boat a few weeks back.

A few things I can add to help or confuse you even more.

First off - my original plan was to buy the sigma 100-300F4 which offered the same aperture as the L and the extra reach of the IS lens and just as sharp as the L lens.

Ideally this would have been the lens I wanted but the extra price held me back. Once I got over the price the size was simply too big compared to the L and the IS.

So I ended up with the 70-200M L lens. Given that its very sharp compared to my other lenses even at F4 the lens does really well even indoors.

The bulid quality is just superb and I'm sure this lens will last me at least 15 years. It's light and very easy to carry. Also the lens does not extend at all. Offers super fast USM and Full Time Manual Focus.

Now the reach is well 200mm. I did test with a 1.5 extender and the focus was hunting and the images are not as good because I am now used to super sharp photos.

Since I had 300mm focal length lens before and sold it to make room for the L I do miss the reach. But the plan is to buy a 3rd party 100-400mm lens that will give me more reach why stop at 300mm. The focal length is never long enough but 400mm will do for me.

I know most of the time what sort if reach is needed on my trips or my photo days.

This way I have my wide angle zoom 17-40, my walk around lens 28-105 , my short reach 70-200 L and my long reach 100-40mm as needed.

I also have the 35F2 for indoor shots of my 2 girls running around and also my 50F1.8 for everyday use on my 3rd body. That lens is always on my D60 on the back seat.

BY the way the hood that comes with the 70-200 is way too big. I replaced it with a smaller yet jut as effective metal hood thats on all the time.

So if you must have 300mm go with the Sigma 100-300F4 if you dont mind spending the extra $$$. Not exactly a walk around size lens but you may be ok with it. Mount all lenses at your local photo place before you make a decision.

Regards,

Steve

dksdks said:

Hi to all and thanks to the Dpreview team for helping with my
registration.

I am looking into buying either the 70-200 4L or the 70-300 IS lens.

I have had a look in the relevant articles and threads, including
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=19010558

and the general picture I am getting is that the 70-300 has IS and
a bigger range whereas the 70-200 has better build quality, USM and
better image quality at f4.

1. What I have not understood from the threads is whether, after
any necessary stopping down, the 70-200 lens has a general picture
quality that is noticeably better than the 70-300 lens in the
70-200mm range. I usually shoot in plenty of light so stopping down
is not a problem.

2. To get a similar range with the 70-200 lens I will need an 1.4x
extender that will increase the cost of the package and degrade the
picture quality. Will the quality of the picture end up being
better or worse that the 70-300 in the 200-300mm range, taking into
consideration the factor of the added cost as well?

I am also open to any other similarly priced sugestions.
Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

thank you and sorry for the delayed reply.

it seems that not many people actually have both setups, to compare.
i will also look into the lenses you sugested.

Sigma 80-400 VR.
--
Ian the RF Cat.



RFCat (Vee Kay three Y A Y) aka irm
LOVE MY 10D
Have fun while learning digital photography.
http://www.pbase.com/ianm_au
equipment in profile