upgrade tele zoom ? 70-300 -> 70-200 ?

hi,

I have a 70-300 IS and I am wondering to upgrade for a 70-200 IS f4. As I am in the US, the price is tempting! If I can resell the 70-300, it will 'only' cost about 600$

I am not so happy with contrast of the 70-300 above 200. But it is quite good between 70-200, so does the 70-200 will be really better?

Any experience with this upgrade? I guess it is worth. I will lose the far end, but I have a 1.4x Kenko converter that may do the job (no ?). Adding the resolution of my 50D, crop will help also. I look at comparisons on the web but some real life examples are welcomed.

thank you for your advices!
M

Hi Marc,

I'm also considering to switch from the 70-300 to the 70-200. But I'm not sure to go for the f/4.0 or the f/2.8. The f/4.0 seems to be sharper but the f/2.8 is faster.... it's a brainer

Marc_LS said:

hi,

I have a 70-300 IS and I am wondering to upgrade for a 70-200 IS f4. As I am in the US, the price is tempting! If I can resell the 70-300, it will 'only' cost about 600$

I am not so happy with contrast of the 70-300 above 200. But it is quite good between 70-200, so does the 70-200 will be really better?

Any experience with this upgrade? I guess it is worth. I will lose the far end, but I have a 1.4x Kenko converter that may do the job (no ?). Adding the resolution of my 50D, crop will help also. I look at comparisons on the web but some real life examples are welcomed.

thank you for your advices!
M

Click to expand...

Marc_LS said:

I am not so happy with contrast of the 70-300 above 200. But it is quite good between 70-200, so does the 70-200 will be really better?

Click to expand...

Yes, it's better. And with a EF 1.4X II you will get better results at 280mm as well.
--
Mike Mullen

I am sure the upgrade is better (I have the f4 IS version) but only if you have the extra cash.

As far as the f4 IS vs the 2.8. Well if you need the 2.8 because you will be doing people in lower light conditions... but otherwise the f4 IS can get better still dark shots (I feel) and is way smaller.
--
Quickly shooter, draw your lens or prepared to get shot.

I love this lens. Truth is my first telephoto lens was the 55-250mm which at the time, I was told the closeness of that lens and the 70-300mm was not worth the double in price to the 70-300mm. And I bought a long range Sigma for really long telephoto. But I bought the f4 IS version (70-200mm) because of the quality I would hear about it but also for its control. Its constant aperture and IS allow for some really good control over what you are doiing in tough situations. I really do love it. Its less annoying to carry around than say the 2.8 non IS version, though both cost about the same.
--
Quickly shooter, draw your lens or prepared to get shot.

Marc_LS said:

hi,

I have a 70-300 IS and I am wondering to upgrade for a 70-200 IS f4. As I am in the US, the price is tempting! If I can resell the 70-300, it will 'only' cost about 600$

I am not so happy with contrast of the 70-300 above 200. But it is quite good between 70-200, so does the 70-200 will be really better?

Click to expand...

Well, seeing how the 70-200 has ZERO contrast above 200mm, probably not .

Anyway, I did do the same thing, in large part for the better AF. The 70-300 needed different micro-focus at different focal lengths which was a pain and it wasn't as precise, or fast, anyhow. The 70-200 f/4 IS was more usable for serious daytime sports shooting too (I had a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS which was even better for that but sold it).

I put a TC on the 70-200 f/4 IS and it was sharper at f/5.6 at 280mm than the 70-300 IS, but by f/8 the 70-300 IS seemed a tiny bit better.

The 70-200 f/4 IS was a little bit better at 70-200mm, the 70-300 IS is pretty good there though.

Overall the 70-200 f/4 IS generally covers 70-280mm the same or better than the 70-300 IS but needs the inconvenience of a TC to get above 200mm, of course. It is faster at the wide and middle range and has faster and much more precise AF (I started getting frustrated with the imprecision of the 70-300 IS AF), the 70-200 has a little bit better bokeh.

If you really want a better 300mm you might need to look at a used 300 f/4 non-IS or something. The 100-300L is maybe a tiny bit less sharp at 300mm than the 70-300 IS but has tons more contrast there (an even slower lens though and no IS).

Marc_LS said:

Any experience with this upgrade? I guess it is worth. I will lose the far end, but I have a 1.4x Kenko converter that may do the job (no ?). Adding the resolution of my 50D, crop will help also. I look at comparisons on the web but some real life examples are welcomed.

thank you for your advices!
M

Click to expand...

How much is it going to cost you? Bottom line including tax and all other expenses.

Maybe to be reasonable about it you should see if you can get the money for your EF 70-300(is) first.

I have the EF 70-300(is) and I was thinking of getting the EF 70-200L(is) f/4. I would use the ‘L’ lens for landscapes and more composed images. The 70-300(is) I would use for its smaller size, more discreet, street photography, and when 300mm was needed.

But then I compared the tests between the two on this site and they seemed to have about the same test results;
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/11

So I didn’t go ahead with the upgrade. I’m going to use the money to get a new computer when Windows 7 is released.

Some pictures, all at 300mm;



.
.
.



.
.
.



.
.
.



.
.
.



...
Thanks, Ed
http://www.edwardintoronto.com

Wow! Those pictures look incredibly sharp! I'm so happy to see that, especially since my 70-300mm is arriving today

Yes,

I know the results are not so much different on tests, but I found that in real life, the 70-300 is not always getting good results when there is a lot of light.

Also, I may buy a 7D, so I get a full weather-sealed system.

Will see ...

So, if I understand, in terms of IQ, there is not so much to win with the 70-200 ?

so, you notice a big difference with the 70-200 compared to 70-300. In what terms? IQ ? other than that?

True, it is a budget lens, the focusing can be a pig at times. It's not the best for low light either. But if you look at the alternatives for getting sharp with 'IS' up to 300mm, there's not much out there, its a nice little lens.

You only live once, if you got the cash, go for it, get the 'L'. You do photography to enjoy it, and you'll probably enjoy adding the 'L' into your photographic work.

--
Thanks, Ed
http://www.edwardintoronto.com

Marc_LS said:

so, you notice a big difference with the 70-200 compared to 70-300. In what terms? IQ ? other than that?

Click to expand...

Focus speed, focus accuracy, sharpness, CA, distortion, bokeh and contrast when shooting a back lit scene.

--
Mike Mullen

I've used a 70-200 2.8 and it was a nice lens but a am really surprised by how well my 70-300 perfoms, I didn't expect that much out of it. I even use it on a regular basis at IS0 3200 with good results shooting photos of our church band with just the stage lighting.

blessings,
Steven

Marc_LS said:

So, if I understand, in terms of IQ, there is not so much to win with the 70-200 ?

Click to expand...

with the TC, wide open at f/5.6, it does beat the 70-300 at 280mm, but by f/8 the 70-300 IS seems even to a little ahead.

The 70-200 is a little better at 70-200mm but the 70-300 is not bad there at all.

The AF is way better and it seems a easier to get sharp results out of it above 150mm or so, at least with my copies.

Neither will get you to a truly contrasty 280mm+, for that you need a 100-300L and if you want it to also be super sharp, as well as contrasty, then you need a 300mm prime. So it depends if you are going to be picky or not.

I'm not at all unhappy I switched, but it might not be worth it for everyone.

I had had a 70-200 2.8 non-IS as my short sports lens and a 70-300 IS for my compact, walk-around telephoto. Stopped shooting lots of indoor sports so I sold the pair for the 70-200 f/4 IS. I already had the 1.4x TC. It can handle outdoor daytime sports, AF is not bothersome, I get better or equal quality in all cases aside from 280mm f/8 where it is just a trace worse and while not quite as compact, is just enough so to work as a general walk-around. It also gets you f/4 instead f/5 (?) at 200mm.

Marc_LS said:

Yes,

I know the results are not so much different on tests, but I found that in real life, the 70-300 is not always getting good results when there is a lot of light.

Click to expand...

flare? poor focus accuracy?

I never owned the 70-300mm. Just the 70-200mm f4L IS USM and the 55-250mm IS
--
Quickly shooter, draw your lens or prepared to get shot.

I had the 70-300 and upgraded to the 70-200 F4 IS with a 1.4.

The 70-300 is a good lens and the 70-200 is a great lens... one of the best zooms canon makes....

If you upgrade you will never look back....

bronxbombers said:

Marc_LS said:

So, if I understand, in terms of IQ, there is not so much to win with the 70-200 ?

Click to expand...

with the TC, wide open at f/5.6, it does beat the 70-300 at 280mm, but by f/8 the 70-300 IS seems even to a little ahead.

The 70-200 is a little better at 70-200mm but the 70-300 is not bad there at all.

The AF is way better and it seems a easier to get sharp results out of it above 150mm or so, at least with my copies.

Click to expand...

Some here seem to think that the IQ difference between the 70-300IS and the 70-200Ls (of any variety) is like day and night. In my experience this is just not so. I have owned the 70-200L f4 and the 70-300IS and now own the 70-200 f4 IS (and shoot each week with 2 friends who use the 70-300IS) - and while the L IS version is sharpest, it's not by a huge amount, as Bronxbombers has pointed out. He is correct again in that the A/F of the L lenses is far superior, especially in low-light. By time you add a converter to the L to get to 280mm, the difference in IQ is negligible. I think a lot of people just expect the Ls to be much sharper, so it becomes a fact to them, without actually having owned and used both.

thanks for all your inputs,

I am really considering to buy the 70-200. Maybe not for the IQ that seems not so much better than 70-300, but for AF, contract, consistency, ... It may ba also that some of my pics with the 70-300 are not so great due to slight misfocus.

To buy a lens in the US (Boston), what do you recommend? On-line, i guess (no taxes), what ? Amazon, B+H ? As a L lens, it includes the lens hood and a case, right?