the new 70-300IS vs 70-200/4 w/wo 1.4X

[Elan Remford]

Eden,

I've never shot with the 70-200 f/4, but I understand that it's great. All of my observations are based on what I own, which means the f/2.8 70-200 IS version.

Yes, the 70-300 remains sharp wide open throughout. I'm sure a LOT of people would love the 70-200 f/4 to go IS too, but I think you may be a bit premature to assume that the 24-105 f/4 is the beginning of some sort of IS L "line". It would be nice, but sales are so good of the 70-200 in all varieties, (or at least seem to be), that it would be hard for me to imagine Canon fixing a nonexistent problem.

For the convenience, there's no question I'd rather shoot with the 70-300 IS than the 70-200 and TC combo, which I'm sure works excellently too. IMO, unless you can guarantee shutter speeds to ensure no blur when you shoot handheld, the 70-300 is likely to be at least as sharp, and more often. I have a 5D arriving in the morning, but like you, I'm thinking of the II N. I may switch over Monday. We'll see.

Best,

E.

Eden,

I love it. It really IS fantastic. No, it's not the 70-200 f/2.8
IS, but it doesn't try to be, and it isn't priced to be.
Nonetheless, for an f/4-5.6 lens, I find it to be tremendously
sharp and vivid, and its IS absolutely rocks. I can shoot 1/15
handheld at 300mm. Yes, "WOW".

i meant compared to 70-200/4 not the 2.8 IS version.
In HK, the new 70-300 IS is priced at a little bit more ( USD 70)
than the 70-200/4. i like to see any head to head comparsion of
these 2 lenses.

i am also thinking if canon would soon upgrade 70-200/4 with IS
after the success of 24-105L, the first IS in its F4 L product line.

With a TC, I'd have to say that the 70-200 and 70-300 have to be
pretty close to each other in everything expect aperture, as the
70-200 will retain f/4 throughout. On the other hand, the 70-300
is SO easy to carry, it is, without a doubt, the lens I will take
with me (alongside my 24-105) when travelling most of the time.
It's sharp wide open and just a very, very good performer overall.

do u mean the new 70-300 is sharp wide open? is it still good
beyond 200mm?

It certainly behaves more like the 70-200 than the old 75-300, and
I think the biggest problem is that people think it SHOULD be a
70-200 f/2.8 IS. Well, it's not. It's not a 100-400 L either, but

no, i rather compare it to 70-200/4

it's damn close, and I am sure that it would be difficult for the
vast majority of shots to be distinguishable among them. It is a
virtually perfect compact tele-zoom from what I can tell, and once
you mix in all of the factors, including price, performance,
usefulness, ergonomics, it would certainly be among the top 3 or 4
lenses I am glad I own.

btw, have u received your 5D? i sold my 70-200/4 becuz it's too
long on 1.6X. with the possibility of FF i am thinking to buy back
the 70-200/4. the new 70-300 IS is a tempting alternative if it is
on par with the L

i am still in the decision between 5D and 1N.

yesterday, i went to the local dealer they said all 5D sold out in
one day. i was allowed to test feel the weight of a 1D2 without
battery & lens. I am surpised, it's very light!!! would it weight
much differently with a battery?

--
-
Cogito ergo spud.

 

[susteki]

Few pictures taken today, no processing straight from the camera, hand held. Let me know what you think....

 

[Eden Yip]

no text

 

[PeaceFrog]

Would you mind posting 100% crops and EXIF data? Those look very nice from what I can see.

Thanks,

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

 

[sigsegv]

I've tried the new 70-300 IS USM in a store.

1. Focuses faster then the old 75-300 IS USM
2. Optical quality is definatly improved

3. IS works great compared to the 75-300 IS USM (but didn't seem to work as well the 70-300 DO USM IS I've tried a min later)

Now, for optical quality, it's definatly improved from the old, however the 'older version' was a total loss so anything would be an improvement.

In the store I shot it against 70-300 DO IS USM (stores' display model) and my old Coffee Grinder (100-300 F5.6L)

All lens were tested at 300mm only:

I would rate them as follows:

1. 1: 100-300 F5.6L: to my eye this lens managed to outpeform both of the newer models, noticebly sharper and better color
2. 2: 70-300 DO IS USM: Amazing lens, considering it's size and how well it handles matched to optical quality it gives, expensive! The difference between the anchient 100-300 F5.6L isn't that great and could have been just testing error (however, hard to belive since it has IS vs 100-300 F5.6L doesn't, shots were hand held)
3. 3: 70-300 IS USM: An overdue replacement for the old underperformer. It looked pretty sharp (still not matching 100-300 or 70-300 DO but very close) however the colors were no where near as nice as the other two models. The colors looked much more washed out.

I can say this test was mostly meaningless as there were far to many varibles present + relativly close distances being tested.

IMHO the 70-300 DO IS USM blows away the other two lens as a total package. Ring USM + IS + Compact Size for quality trade off is very nice.

Between the 70-300 IS USM and the 100-300 F5.6L is much more difficult to decide, as I feel the optical advantage of the 100-300 F5.6L is much greater even against with 3rd gen? IS and Micro-USM (Still tons faster then AFD).

 

[Mark Holmes]

would be nice to see your test shots comparing the 3.

Mark
--
http://www.pbase.com/athiker95/galleries
http://www.mountaintalk.blogspot.com

 

[PeaceFrog]

I agree, it would be very nice.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/