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

Started Jan 22, 2013 | Discussions thread
crazybadger Senior Member • Posts: 1,391
Re: 70-200f/4 IS L + 1.4tc or 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS L?

Donald Duck wrote:

crazybadger wrote:

Totally agree that the thought processes of those that didn't buy the lens are just as important to potential buyers. But then people should be clear that they have no first hand knowledge and based it entirely on the same site already mentioned. The problem is when people post info about how this piece of equipement is clearly better/worse than that piece, when they have no personal experience of the tools involved, then all they do is cloud the issue. Take this thread. If people hadn't asked "do you have the lens", it would look like there are 3-4 people who have tested the lens, compared it to the other, and concluded the 70-200 w/TC is better. So now the tdp results take on a life of there own. They are now no longer 2 lenses (isn't that their usual testing #?) it is 3-4...and then 5-6...and pretty soon it is "common knowledge that". When in actual fact it is one test site plus 2 or three people repeating that site. Of actual users, so far everyone who has replied here has voiced an opinion close to Dags. Posters should be aware of that.

You are forgetting that the only reason I got involved was to express skepticism that the 70-300 is better overall than the 70-200/4 IS in the 70-200 range, no TC. Only one user claimed that. Almost every testing site says the opposite. I am not claiming that the 70-300 is bad, or even noticeably worse. But better - give me a break.

Now, I can believe that this is what that particular user experienced.

BTW, there is so much subjectivism and fanboyism in those forums that personal user experiences have to be taken with a huge grain of salt. The standard deviation is huge. I will take the TDP word over that of 2-3 forum members any day. Now, if you make the latter 8-10, I will start having doubts.

I hear you DD.

Actually I wouldn't argue the 70-300L is "better" between 70-200. I think "not noticably different" between the 70-200 range would be a good description. From 200-280 however I would argue the advantage goes to the 300. Like many others I was sceptical when the 70-300L was released. But it was the overwhelming reports from everyone who picked one up and posted that convinced me. I alread had an excellent copy of the 100-400 so the 70-300L was a bonus not a necessity for me. And was I was sufficiently impressed to keep it.

Like you said, I always do take the forum reports with a massive grain of salt. But in the case of the 70-300L, the initial scepticism of many (and the 70-300L had some pretty intense "haters" before release) was completely blown away by the almost unanimous positive reviews from users. If I see 50/50 in favour, or even 70/30 positive reviews, I might still be cautious thinking..."maybe they are justifying their expense?". But in the case of the 70-300L it was pretty much total agreement from day one. There were even one or two who purchased the lens with the intent of returning them immediately after shwing that the new tamron 70-300 was better, and even they turned around and said, "wow...great lens". Perfect? Heck no...it is a tool that fulfills certain rolls with pluses and minuses just like any other tool. But certainly a lot of people (myself included) have been extremely happy at the shots it produces.

 crazybadger's gear list:crazybadger's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.5 1-5x Macro +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD schmegg
MOD schmegg
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow