70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS vs. 70-200mm f/4 L IS

[bronxbombers4]

Hi,

I use both.

In IQ they are very close, but not completely equal. The 70-200 being little better straight from wide open across the entire focal range.

it depends upon copies, with my pair and what I see on about 70% of tests, is that the 70-300L is sharper wide open center frame at 70mm for sure although with a lot more lateral CA, less sharp at 135L and with similar CA, a trace sharper with a bit less CA at 200mm. Noticeably sharper and with noticeably less CA at 280mm compared to other with 1.4x TC.

Centre sharpness of both lenses is very good, but what the 70-200 f4 IS shows towards the edges is not matched by the 70-300 L. The 70-200 is very consistent towards the edges, even wide open, where the 70-300 falls behind a bit. I know sample variance does exist, but both 70-300 L's I use do not match my 70-200. They are almost indistinguishable at 70mm, but at 200mm the difference is there.

I have never been a fan of TC's and refuse to use 'm, so can't comment on that.

Regards, Sandor.

With the copies I compared the edges seemed to be pretty similar across all three lenses across the entire focal range from what I recall (surprisingly more similar than center of the frame actually, where the tamron fell behind the most actually and the 70-200 and 70-300 traded places depending upon focal length).

My 70-200 2.8 non-IS though fell quite behind all three at the edges on FF though.

 

[Cleanoduck]

I sold mine 70-200 f.4.0 a couple a years ago in favor of the 70-300. No regrets for me, only benefits. More reach in a compact lens.

goog luck.

 

[mlschless]

I don't think any Best Buy stocks the 70-300L in store and certainly not out on the counter to mess around with. You must be trying the old 70-300 non-L. That lens has nothing at all to do with the 70-300L. That one is much smaller and lighter, has slower AF, extends while doing AF, has much worse contrast above 200mm and is less sharp and has much less precise AF and is black instead of white.

I'm pretty sure it was the L as it was white. They also had the 70-200L f/4 and the 70-200L f/2.8 (behemoth!) and didn't seem to mind me playing with them. I would have preferred trying them at a local camera shop, but there are none in my area. I think maybe my BB salesguy was ill-informed (another reason why a specialized camera shop would have been preferred). Now that I've come to learn that the lens does indeed extend, but doesn't rotate, I'm thinking he presumed it rotated while extending. (He was also a Nikon guy, so has never shot this lens.)

Anyway, I am happy to have learned that it does not rotate, so that knocks off one of the concerns I had with that lens. Now I just need to weigh the "reach vs fixed/variable aperture" issue and decide what is more important at this juncture.

All this feedback has been helpful, so thanks.

 

[mlschless]

The 70-300 is f4.0 from 70mm to 100mm, then f4.5 to about 150mm, then f5.0 to about 220mm. So you will lose 1/3 to 2/3 stops compared to the 70-200 over it's focal length range.

The barrel extends during zoom but does not rotate during zoom or focusing.

Wow - thanks for this! This makes so much sense to me (I may have even heard a "click" in my brain - lol!). It helps me see more clearly that the loss of stops is really minimal in the overall scheme of things, and certainly at the long end if I'm thinking of adding an extender to the 70-200. Because even with the 1.4x that puts me at 5.6 at the long end anyway.

This was soooo helpful - thank you!

 

[mlschless]

Hi,

I use both.

In IQ they are very close, but not completely equal. The 70-200 being little better straight from wide open across the entire focal range. In real life though it will be difficult to see the difference. The fixed max aperture of the 70-200 gives you slightly more control over DOF at longer FL.

More difference meanwhile in handling both lenses, I definitely prefer the 70-200 for that matter. You can hold it very steady by placing your thumb and forefinger between the zoom and focus ring and zoom with your middle finger. Nothing changes physically on the outside during zoom and/or focus and balance stays perfect. The 70-200 also is noticeable lighter.

A known "issue" with the 70-300 is the unintended turn of the focus ring because of the placing of the ring between zoom ring and camera body. I use a tripod mount to prevent that and for better handling (mount in the palm of my hands, zoom with thumb and middle finger). Nothing rotates during zoom or focus, there's only the change in length while zooming.

When 200mm is enough I recommend the fixed max aperture 70-200 over the -300. However reading your post I expect the -200 mm to be too short for your needs (birds, squirrels, distant objects) and for that I think you should get the 70-300 instead. Like the 70-200 a solid choice too.

Regards, Sandor.

Thank you, Sandor. I did find the location of the zoom ring a bit awkward. If I go this route I will keep your "handling" tip in mind. That does seem like it would offer more support for handheld shooting. The lens is a little heavy for me and it seemed it might be hard to handhold fairly still if I couldn't snug everything up together in both hands. Your method may just be the answer to that dilemma for me.

 

[bronxbombers4]

I don't think any Best Buy stocks the 70-300L in store and certainly not out on the counter to mess around with. You must be trying the old 70-300 non-L. That lens has nothing at all to do with the 70-300L. That one is much smaller and lighter, has slower AF, extends while doing AF, has much worse contrast above 200mm and is less sharp and has much less precise AF and is black instead of white.

I'm pretty sure it was the L as it was white. They also had the 70-200L f/4 and the 70-200L f/2.8 (behemoth!) and didn't seem to mind me playing with them. I would have preferred trying them at a local camera shop, but there are none in my area. I think maybe my BB salesguy was ill-informed (another reason why a specialized camera shop would have been preferred). Now that I've come to learn that the lens does indeed extend, but doesn't rotate, I'm thinking he presumed it rotated while extending. (He was also a Nikon guy, so has never shot this lens.)
Anyway, I am happy to have learned that it does not rotate, so that knocks off one of the concerns I had with that lens. Now I just need to weigh the "reach vs fixed/variable aperture" issue and decide what is more important at this juncture.

All this feedback has been helpful, so thanks.

Wow, that's a pretty fancy BB in your area then.

Anyway, regardless, the front does not rotate with AF on any of the white tele-zooms from Canon.

 

[mlschless]

Wow, that's a pretty fancy BB in your area then.

Anyway, regardless, the front does not rotate with AF on any of the white tele-zooms from Canon.

Yeah, they recently did a huge remodel of that area of the store and tripled the size of the photography department. I don't buy my gear there, but it's a decent place to check stuff out and get my hands on things before pulling the trigger at B&H.