70-200 vs. 70-300 - microcontrast

[Alex 13]

I'm trying to decide between these two lenses and have read a bunch of threads and reviews on both, including some comparison threads.

From my searching it appears most recommend the 70-300. I will admit, the size is great and the closer focus is also a big plus. The sharpness appears excellent and focus speed looks good. The one thing holding me back - contrast. Looking at photos on Flickr and other sites, most seem a bit flat and uninteresting. I don't see the photos and (with a few exceptions) get that 'wow' feeling.

The 70-200 has a higher hit-rate at that 'wow' look.

I'm looking to have something longer to complement my usual FE28, FE55Z combo. At the moment I'm using a CZ135/4 prime, but my skills with manual focus and hand holding a longer lens are not great, and I get a lot of misses. I shot a wedding for a family member recently and this was frustrating. I prefer primes but as you all know, there isn't anything in the 135 range that's native and AF. I'm not interested at all in bulky adaptors as I like to travel light.

My application is varied. I'm a hobbyist who leans towards travel and landscape, but recently I've been doing more shots of family, particularly of a fast moving 3yr old nephew. I favour the FE55Z; the hit rate out of that lens is crazy high. I would use the lens maybe 15-20% of the time, with the FE55 at 60% and the FE28 at 20-25%. I do like shooting wide open. I shoot often in lower light.

How are you all finding your FE 70-200 or 70-300?

 

[Craig NC]

I'm trying to decide between these two lenses and have read a bunch of threads and reviews on both, including some comparison threads.

From my searching it appears most recommend the 70-300. I will admit, the size is great and the closer focus is also a big plus. The sharpness appears excellent and focus speed looks good. The one thing holding me back - contrast. Looking at photos on Flickr and other sites, most seem a bit flat and uninteresting. I don't see the photos and (with a few exceptions) get that 'wow' feeling.

The 70-200 has a higher hit-rate at that 'wow' look.

I'm looking to have something longer to complement my usual FE28, FE55Z combo. At the moment I'm using a CZ135/4 prime, but my skills with manual focus and hand holding a longer lens are not great, and I get a lot of misses. I shot a wedding for a family member recently and this was frustrating. I prefer primes but as you all know, there isn't anything in the 135 range that's native and AF. I'm not interested at all in bulky adaptors as I like to travel light.

My application is varied. I'm a hobbyist who leans towards travel and landscape, but recently I've been doing more shots of family, particularly of a fast moving 3yr old nephew. I favour the FE55Z; the hit rate out of that lens is crazy high. I would use the lens maybe 15-20% of the time, with the FE55 at 60% and the FE28 at 20-25%. I do like shooting wide open. I shoot often in lower light.

How are you all finding your FE 70-200 or 70-300?

--
mein Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/127666482@N03/

I have been happy with my copy of the lens. The OSS is great when I can't use a tripod.

This was handheld at 1/90 148mm


A7 with sel70300g

Here is another at 70mm

 

[JT26]

Stunning shots. Impressed by this lens I think, but like the OP, I am a bit confused which is better, this or the 70-200... Seems like the 70-300 is sharper to me.

 

[Jerry R]

For me the tradeoff is 300mm vs f/4 & tripod collar. Since my primary use for the lens is with a tripod I have 70-200mm.

I don't the the difference in IQ (if any) is significant.

 

[Craig NC]

For me the tradeoff is 300mm vs f/4 & tripod collar. Since my primary use for the lens is with a tripod I have 70-200mm.

I don't the the difference in IQ (if any) is significant.

 

[Bruce Oudekerk]

I wondered the very same thing. Last July, I had tested my FE70-300G in the artificial test chart environment of my basement and I was suitably impressed. However I wanted to know how it would perform in a true photo session. A couple of takeaways from that real world shoot. While it's certainly not 55mm prime f5.6 quality, it's excellent …maybe superb… in the vast majority of the frame for a longish zoom. The combination of the in-lens image stabilization and the in-camera image stabilization with my a7RII is fantastic. And lastly, focus speed on my a7RII is quite brisk. Overall, I am enormously pleased with this lens.

All three of these images were taken on that first outing where I shot everything at a local park in aperture priority at f5.6. Most shots were at 300mm just to see how it performed wide open.

These two routinely processed shots are included for a couple of reasons. One: they are hand held and two: they demonstrate how shallow DOF at f5.6 can be at 300mm. Especially with the fur, note the softness in the lower left. To a lesser degree that’s also true with the feathers with the softness at 1 o’clock. This is not the lens, but rather detail that is a bit closer or further. These should be viewed at original size or 100%.





This last shot, taken at the same shoot, is included just because I like it. It isn’t at 300mm…but it is longer than 200mm.

I lot of people talk about using ‘feet to zoom’ but often that shot isn’t available even seconds later… sometimes fractions of a second... for things like sports, kids and wildlife (the last two being the same thing Only landscapes are patient.

Bruce

--
http://www.pbase.com/misterpixel

 

[ZodiacPhoto]

I had both lenses in my hands for a few days, and I run a couple of tests of my own.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59011325

I think some sample variation is possible, so my findings may be applicable to the two lenses I had:

- Both lenses are practically indistinguishable at 70mm and 100mm anywhere in the frame, as well as at any focal length near the center of the frame.

- 70-200mm is sharper at the edges at 135mm

- 70-300mm is sharper at the edges at 200mm. Remember that 200mm is the long end of zoom for 70-200mm, where such lenses are usually the weakest, while for the 70-300mm it is still somewhat a middle-range.

- 70-200mm focuses faster, more consistently and reliably indoors / in low light (my subjective impression)

- Make sure you use careful manual focusing when testing such lenses.

70-200mm feels more solid and better built, due to internal zoom. Imagine shooting in light rain or near a waterfall - when you zoom in and out, water droplets could be sucked in the lens - you hope that the gaskets will stop them.

 

[mdcromer]

First thing I said looking at the first picture was "looks like the blue ridge parkway in fall" and then I saw Cone Manor in the second picture.

 

[zackiedawg]

First thing I said looking at the first picture was "looks like the blue ridge parkway in fall" and then I saw Cone Manor in the second picture.

Same thought for me. When I saw the lake shot with Cone Manor above, I knew right away we were in Blowing Rock. I have stayed at the Chetola Resort many times and walked Bass Lake often - though usually in winter! That definitely looks like Bass Lake.

 

[Alex 13]

Lovely area and shots. I'm on another continent but have been fortunate enough to visit the Blue Ridge Parkway in 2015 while on a work trip to the US.

I'm looking less for sharpness, but more for that almost intangible 'pop' that some lenses seem to have. The Zeiss seem to have it, even the 24-70/4 which (unfairly in my opinion) gets a bad rap, as do many Leica lenses. I am not sure what the coatings are on these two and if they vary significantly from each other?

 

[JT26]

Unlikely you are going to find a lens that gives you 'pop' when you are comparing two slow ish zoom lenses.

Unsure what you mean by pop. Leica has a look for sure. Vastly different from Zeiss. Opposite almost.

 

[NumberOne]

I'm trying to decide between these two lenses and have read a bunch of threads and reviews on both, including some comparison threads.

From my searching it appears most recommend the 70-300. I will admit, the size is great and the closer focus is also a big plus. The sharpness appears excellent and focus speed looks good. The one thing holding me back - contrast. Looking at photos on Flickr and other sites, most seem a bit flat and uninteresting. I don't see the photos and (with a few exceptions) get that 'wow' feeling.

The 70-200 has a higher hit-rate at that 'wow' look.

I'm looking to have something longer to complement my usual FE28, FE55Z combo. At the moment I'm using a CZ135/4 prime, but my skills with manual focus and hand holding a longer lens are not great, and I get a lot of misses. I shot a wedding for a family member recently and this was frustrating. I prefer primes but as you all know, there isn't anything in the 135 range that's native and AF. I'm not interested at all in bulky adaptors as I like to travel light.

My application is varied. I'm a hobbyist who leans towards travel and landscape, but recently I've been doing more shots of family, particularly of a fast moving 3yr old nephew. I favour the FE55Z; the hit rate out of that lens is crazy high. I would use the lens maybe 15-20% of the time, with the FE55 at 60% and the FE28 at 20-25%. I do like shooting wide open. I shoot often in lower light.

How are you all finding your FE 70-200 or 70-300?

 

[Alex 13]

Renting is a great idea but unfortunately in little Ol' Adelaide, South Australia there aren't many options for it

 

[Mark K]

70 200 should be your first choice. I also have 70 300 but its image quality is nowhere near close to 70 200

 

[Alex 13]

Unlikely you are going to find a lens that gives you 'pop' when you are comparing two slow ish zoom lenses.

Unsure what you mean by pop. Leica has a look for sure. Vastly different from Zeiss. Opposite almost.

--
https://500px.com/candidchris

It's a look that gives more depth to the image - a better microcontrast in the lens - ie how the lens differentiates between tones that are very similar.



This image to me shows the difference between the 70-300 (R) and 70-200 (L) in terms of 'pop'. The sharpness is similar, but the bottle on the right looks far less flat and has better colour. It's clearly seen in the reflection on the bottle, and the colour of the liquid on the left hand side. Images from this thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4006232



I shoot raw and post process all my photos, so it may not be a big deal.

Still torn between these two. The fast focus and indoor capability of the 70-200 vs. the portability and close focus of the 70-300. I don't really care about the extra 100mm - in fact, I'd much prefer a fastish (F2.8 or less) 135-150mm prime.

--
mein Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/127666482@N03/

 

[Alex 13]

Sorry, 70-200 is on right in image above - I had the lenses back to front but the comparison is correct. Can't seem to edit from my phone.

 

[ZodiacPhoto]

70 200 should be your first choice. I also have 70 300 but its image quality is nowhere near close to 70 200

 

[PWPhotography]

Unlikely you are going to find a lens that gives you 'pop' when you are comparing two slow ish zoom lenses.

Unsure what you mean by pop. Leica has a look for sure. Vastly different from Zeiss. Opposite almost.

--
https://500px.com/candidchris

It's a look that gives more depth to the image - a better microcontrast in the lens - ie how the lens differentiates between tones that are very similar.



This image to me shows the difference between the 70-300 (R) and 70-200 (L) in terms of 'pop'. The sharpness is similar, but the bottle on the right looks far less flat and has better colour. It's clearly seen in the reflection on the bottle, and the colour of the liquid on the left hand side. Images from this thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4006232

I shoot raw and post process all my photos, so it may not be a big deal.

Still torn between these two. The fast focus and indoor capability of the 70-200 vs. the portability and close focus of the 70-300. I don't really care about the extra 100mm - in fact, I'd much prefer a fastish (F2.8 or less) 135-150mm prime.

--
mein Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/127666482@N03/

From what I have read, 70-200G/4.0 OSS has higher sample variation while Sony improved QC in newer 70-300G among GM lenses released around the same time. In general 70-200/4.0 zoom should be sharper than 70-300 with better optical quality. This is true in Canon and Nikon counterparts. I own 70-200G/4.0 OSS. It's very sharp 70-135mm but less 135-200mm especially at 200mm side. 70-200G/4.0 OSS has nice contrast nevertheless.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[Dennishh]

I traded my 70-200 for the 70-300 mostly for the extra reach and size difference. The 70-300 has not disappointed in any way. The look and mood of the 70-300 makes up for any inherent sharpness difference. My 70-200 wasn't that sharp at 200mm where the 70-300 is very sharp at 300mm which is why I bought it. I am hopping Sony will procuce a sharp 100-400. One tip is to shoot the 70-300 at iso 640 at f8 or f11 for starters. 300mm lens movement is destructive hand held. If you don't use 300mm definitely







get the 70-200.

 

[sidebyside]

I bought the 70-200 when it was first released and have many good photos with it but I sold it after trying the new 70-300. I also had the old a-mount version of the SAL 70-300G that required using the LA-EA4 and it also got sold after trying the new FE version.

I solved the issue about no tripod collar by modifying a long tripod plate. I glued some spacers to the plate and used a longer 1/4-20 screw. It was a simple project and it works well.

Here's a photo I shot yesterday with the 70-300.



--
Andy
First and foremost, it's about capturing the moment regardless of how the pixels look at 100%