70-200mm L (EF) vs 70-300 L (EF)

Drogba88 wrote:

Don't know the adaptors you are using, but I can recommend the EF70-200. I have the F/4 version and the IQ is just great. It doesn't have IS, but if you can use a fast shutter speed, you really don't need it. And it is very reasonably priced for an L lens.

It's very tempting. If I were JUST doing photos - I'd hop on that in a millisecond. I saw someone with a nice copy for $450 on the for sale/wanted forum. Thing is, I'll be doing video too so I'll need something that can stabilize at least somewhat especially at the long end. The Speedbooster adapter is basically like a reverse teleconverter. So while the crop factor on a MFT is normally 2X, it becomes 1.4X with the speedbooster and you gain a stop of light in the process (so F4 becomes F2.8 which is pretty awesome). Plus with a 1.4x crop factor, its awfully close to Super35 which gives it a nice film feeling for video.

Graham Meale wrote:

Can't comment on your adaptors etc but I've been using the 70-300L IS for travel ever since it appeared. Small, light, extremely sharp. You won't regret it. Mind you, the 70-200L IS is also excellent. Do you need the extra reach?

Need... eh, probably not. Would it be nice... ya. In theory the first real use would be in South Africa in Kruger National Park... I haven't had anything that goes out beyond (the equivalent of) 400mm so I guess you don't miss what you've never had... so ... uh... maybe? haha

jayboo wrote:

clarksbrother wrote:

Graham Meale wrote:

Can't comment on your adaptors etc but I've been using the 70-300L IS for travel ever since it appeared. Small, light, extremely sharp. You won't regret it. Mind you, the 70-200L IS is also excellent. Do you need the extra reach?

Need... eh, probably not. Would it be nice... ya. In theory the first real use would be in South Africa in Kruger National Park... I haven't had anything that goes out beyond (the equivalent of) 400mm so I guess you don't miss what you've never had... so ... uh... maybe? haha

That trip alone would make me lean towards the 70-300L as good as the 70-200 is I would want the extra reach, but I have no idea how either will work with the adaptors.

From everything I've seen - the EF lenses should work rather well with the adapters, I don't have too much of a concern there.

The only thing that gives me pause with the 70-300 over the 70-200, is just how damn good the 70-200 is, I mean TACK sharp across the whole frame. The 70-300 is no slouch either and I'm probably just splitting hairs at this point. (Here's a side by side comparison - mouse over to swap lenses)

You're probably right though, that extra reach would be nice. Plus, if I'm selling my 100-400, having that extra reach when I break out my full frame would be nice as well...

I have traveled to both India and SE Asia on extended trips with a 7D and 10-22, 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4 (see images). You don't need the weight of a 2.8 lens. The Canon F4's are tack sharp. My next big trip is going to be with my 6D, 21 Zeiss, Canon 24-70 F4 and 70-300 L IS. I am 66years old and travel light. My advise is stick with DSLR. 6D is very light and compact.

flyfoto wrote:

I have traveled to both India and SE Asia on extended trips with a 7D and 10-22, 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4 (see images). You don't need the weight of a 2.8 lens. The Canon F4's are tack sharp. My next big trip is going to be with my 6D, 21 Zeiss, Canon 24-70 F4 and 70-300 L IS. I am 66years old and travel light. My advise is stick with DSLR. 6D is very light and compact.

Very nice pictures indeed!

Agree on no need for a 2.8 lens. I've looked at the IQ of the F2.8 70-200 vs the F4 70-200, IMHO, the F4 has noticably better IQ even with the F2.8 version stopped down to F4.

Part of my desire to get a MFT is frankly 4K video. Canon is incredibly late to the party on anything resembling reasonably affordable 4K at this point and I'm done waiting for their 5D Mark IV. Maybe I'll change my mind next year when I see what they have on tap...

For what I do, it's an even split of video/photo, both for personal and for work. If I were considering only photos, I may pick up a 7D Mark II or something of that ilk but the video doesn't cut the mustard so to speak.

I recently sold my 70-200 f4 IS and purchased the 70-300 IS L and have been very happy. My 70-200 was very sharp and the 70-300 L maybe a little sharper or at least as sharp but the contrast seems to be better on the 70-300 L. It is heavier but the extra 100 mm is handy.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

I think the sweet spot of size, value, weight, reach and IQ is a 70D and 55-250STM.

I would agree that the 55-250STM is a great deal at $299. But in a point for point shootout - the IQ is quite a bit off the mark compared to the 70-300L. Honestly, I would consider it were it not for the fact that its an EF-S lens. I'm planning on using it with a Metabones EF-MTF Speedbooster adapter which will only work with EF Mount lenses (plus I'm planning on keeping my full frame body so having a lens that works with both is preferable)

I ended up going with the 70-300... DO.... 
I was fairly sold on the 70-300L... but frankly.. the size and weight... it went against the whole reason I was getting a 70-300 in the first place instead of trying to shoehorn my 100-400 in my carry-on bag. The 70-300 DO seemed to have reasonable IQ with a VERY compact size and reasonable weight, and that's the magic combination. 
I'd never pay $1400 for a new one but picked up an excellent conditon used one for about $600. I haven't received it yet but will be curious how it stacks up against L lenses in real life.

Will report back when I get it in!

Will be very interested to see how you like it. I love my 70-300 IS L. Willing to live with the weight for the results it gives me. I think best IQ I have had with Canon L lens.

flyfoto wrote:

Will be very interested to see how you like it. I love my 70-300 IS L. Willing to live with the weight for the results it gives me. I think best IQ I have had with Canon L lens.

You and me both, haha. The weight wasn't so much an issue as the size. I made the decision of traveling wherever I go, for however long I go, with JUST a carry on. For me, this is a rather drastic decision as I would usually pack the kitchen sink (and then a spare kitchen sink... just in case). My entire carryon would be my camera gear in a Tamrac Expedition 8X backpack (BIG camera backpack) that was stuffed to the gills with equipment. No clothes, no anything else.

I picked up a Thule Covert DSLR Rolltop Backpack (which I LOVE) but there isn't room for a ton of gear. My gearlist will be:

Panasonic GH4
Metabones Speedbooster
Canon 16-35L F2.8 II
Canon 70-300 DO
Panasonic 14-140
3 Legged Things Rick (Carbon Fiber Tripod with Ballhead)
Tascam TM-2X DSLR Mic
Syrp Genie Mini

Pretty much every single item on that list was selected for a combination of quality with a strong consideration given to size/weight. The lone exception is the 16-35 which is absolutely LOVE. Of course, with the metabones, it won't be as wide (22.4 - 55 or so) but it will be a F2.0 lens. Perfect for my night timelapses. The 70-300 will be equivalent 98-420 which is perfect for wildlife. The 14-140 is an ok walkaround lens when all am able to carry is the camera and that's it (i.e. when I'm flying a plane, etc when I'm not going to be swapping around lenses). The rest of the space is for clothes/toiletries etc.
The first REAL test of this setup will be when I travel to South Africa later this year...

... but try out the system before you sell your other Canon gear - any of it - to make sure you can live with the compromise.

Why go with micro 4/3 and walk away from 35mm system equivalents?

Because your goal is to dramatically lighten your equipment load but still be able to cover airshows and wildlife. Selling your 35mm system 100-400mm lens and replacing it with a 70-300 or 70-200 will not in any way accomplish your goals. The overall equipment load will be about the same and the gear will be less capable (shorter reach).

"My goal is to be able to travel anywhere in the world, for an extended duration (2 weeks+) with just a carry on." "I'll be shooting a lot of wildlife and the occasional airshow. Even mix of video/photos."

Jay

Jay Brookstone wrote:

... but try out the system before you sell your other Canon gear - any of it - to make sure you can live with the compromise.

Why go with micro 4/3 and walk away from 35mm system equivalents?

Because your goal is to dramatically lighten your equipment load but still be able to cover airshows and wildlife. Selling your 35mm system 100-400mm lens and replacing it with a 70-300 or 70-200 will not in any way accomplish your goals. The overall equipment load will be about the same and the gear will be less capable (shorter reach).

"My goal is to be able to travel anywhere in the world, for an extended duration (2 weeks+) with just a carry on." "I'll be shooting a lot of wildlife and the occasional airshow. Even mix of video/photos."

Jay

I plan on holding on to that equipment. Part of the reason for the 70-300 is because I still hold out hope for Canon getting its act together and catching up in the video dept (I know it doesn't matter to others, but it does to me). That's part of the reason for the GH4. The other part of the equation is, no matter how I slice it, my normal canon DSLR setup won't fit.

Going with the GH4 setup brings my weight from about of around 6.5kg (not including extra batteries, etc) to around 3.2kg plus a huge space savings. (honestly, there is a ton more of ancillary stuff that brings the weight up even more for the FF setup but for the sake of argument...)

Also, I think you're forgetting that due to the combined crop factor of the GH4 with the metabones speedbooster, you get a crop factor of about 1.4 which means I lose a little on the wide end and gain a little on the long end (even with the 70-300), plus I pick up an extra stop of light which will be helpful with the smaller sensor. (The fact that the crop factor is right around Super35 is VERY appealing as well...)

There's no substitute for having "been there". And after hauling a ton of photo equipment around the country and world on professional shoots for a decade, I'm aware of the "sacrifices", but I'm also aware of the benefits.

What good is the best camera equipment in the world if I'm so tired from hauling it through wilderness, up mountains, etc that by the time I get there, I'm too exhausted to spend the extra time getting those amazing timelapse shots or great city scenics.

I'm still holding onto my FF setup in case there are situations where there are "accept no substitutes" (and I'll probably get a 5D Mark IV when it comes assuming 4K) but be honest with yourself, when it comes to personal travel and even a good portion of jobs, a GH4 would have been WAY more than sufficient.

Shot out of country last year with another pro to capture intimate details of local life.  We had severe size/weight restrictions due to a need for low profile.  She chose a very compact mirrorless micro 4/3 kit, I took a modest 35mm kit.

Her main complaints were viewfinder issues, responsiveness and grain.  Mine were inability to use large aperture lenses due to bulk and street attention.  We both compromised and we both got our shots and both of us received a lot of positive feedback regarding the resulting Images.  I gained real respect for the emerging compact mirrorless systems on that trip.

Either will work.

My travel kit was a 5D Mark III, 16-35 f4 IS L, 24-105 f4 IS L, 70-300 DO IS and itty-bitty 270 EX speedlite.  It all fit in a modest, drab, canvas shoulder bag.  No white 100-400 on that trip.

My companion's kit fit in the equivalent of a small clutch bag. Impressive.

Jay

Jay Brookstone wrote:

Shot out of country last year with another pro to capture intimate details of local life. We had severe size/weight restrictions due to a need for low profile. She chose a very compact mirrorless micro 4/3 kit, I took a modest 35mm kit.

Her main complaints were viewfinder issues, responsiveness and grain. Mine were inability to use large aperture lenses due to bulk and street attention. We both compromised and we both got our shots and both of us received a lot of positive feedback regarding the resulting Images. I gained real respect for the emerging compact mirrorless systems on that trip.

Either will work.

My travel kit was a 5D Mark III, 16-35 f4 IS L, 24-105 f4 IS L, 70-300 DO IS and itty-bitty 270 EX speedlite. It all fit in a modest, drab, canvas shoulder bag. No white 100-400 on that trip.

My companion's kit fit in the equivalent of a small clutch bag. Impressive.

Jay

Fairly similar to my current kit. 5D Mark II, 16-35 F2.8 II, 24-105 F4 IS L, 100-400L (I). (Plus a Rode Stereo Video Mic and a 580 EX II).
Surprisingly... the thing I may miss the most out of my new kit... is the flash. I don't use it often... but when I do, it's been absolutely essential. The built in for any camera is well... crap... but better than nothing.

The big selling point for me honestly has been video of the GH4. Been quite impressed with the quality and the fact that I can do 100mbps 4K and 200mbps 1080 (up to 96fps). If the V-Log color profile comes along... I'll be in videographer heaven. 
If we had seen the 5D Mark IV with 4K instead of the 5Ds and 5Dsr earlier this year... I probably wouldn't have given MFT a second thought... but the need for 4K arose and it's given me time to evaluate how I travel with my equipment. Worst case scenario is I go back to the old way in the end... but... I doubt I will. Carry-on only is too liberating.

BTW - how do you like the 70-300 DO? Do you have to do much post sharpening?