70-300 IS or 70-200 f 4 L Canon fit

mxfun

mxfun

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,242
Name
Sean Logie
Edit My Images
Yes
Selling a few things at the moment here and there , and i'm thinking NEW LENS :D , Am sure this has been discussed before .

Anyways ... I quite like the idea of the 70-300 IS but it's not going to have the L quality ,but the extra reach is tempting .The 70-200 f4 is very tempting especially for the motorsport side of things , definitely leaning towards it,but there's that something nagging at me that it's just not enough length .Anyone have any thoughts . I'm talking second hand also . Ta fur looking :thumbs:
 
I don't think the 200mm will be long enough for motorsport at most circuits without a 1.4x TC to be honest. The 70-300mm IS is a very, very good lens for the money, and has been described as a hidden L series lens.
 
i used to have the 90-300mm canon lens, very capable and not to mention cheap and light, the only reason i dont still ahve it is due to a concrete floor. very easy to handle but no IS.
 
RichardC27 said:
I don't think the 200mm will be long enough for motorsport at most circuits without a 1.4x TC to be honest. The 70-300mm IS is a very, very good lens for the money, and has been described as a hidden L series lens.
Click to expand...

Hi there Richard,
I should've explained ,the motorsport i do is ,motox ,rallies,hillclimbs ,sprints ,some football ,generally relatively up and close .Very interesting how you commented on the 70-300 IS being a hidden L lens ,there are some very positive reviews on this lens .This is exactly why i've posted on the subject of these lenses i just can't make my mind up :bang:. Thanks for your input


If it were you WHICH would you buy?:....:D
 
mxfun said:
Hi there Richard,
I should've explained ,the motorsport i do is ,motox ,rallies,hillclimbs ,sprints ,some football ,generally relatively up and close .Very interesting how you commented on the 70-300 IS being a hidden L lens ,there are some very positive reviews on this lens .This is exactly why i've posted on the subject of these lenses i just can't make my mind up :bang:. Thanks for your input


If it were you WHICH would you buy?:....:D
Click to expand...

Ah, since you're mainly doing close up stuff it should be fine length wise, and the L series build quality might be beneficial at motox or stood out in the middle of a forest in the pouring rain. It would depend what my budget was to be honest. I think I'd be tempted to save up some extra cash and get the IS version of the 70-200 lens if it was me, just to be akward :lol:
 
The main difference between these two lenses is the tradeoff.

100mm extra + IS vs 1 stop of light.

Would have been tough till you told us the photography you do - the extra stop would take it every time for me and the fact you don't need the long reach as much means it is IS vs 1 stop.
 
So generally ,there's not a lot between the 70-300 IS or 70-200 f4 , in the quality of image ,which is what we're after really ,(just another little twist added :D)
 
there is actually. The 70-200 F4L is generally regarded as the sharpest canon zoom of them all. It is well above the 70-300 IS. This is not saying the 70-300 is bad by any stretch, just the 70-200 is much better.
 
if you need the extra 100mm &/or IS, go for the 70-300. else just stick with the 70-200.
 
I wouldn't say that 200mm is too short for most circuits...

I'm using a 70-200mm lens (f2.8 version) and have always managed to get usable shots. The extra stop will mean that focussing is faster. I've taken some of my favourite motorsports shots using my Dad's 70-200 f4L and would certainly go for that rather than 70-300 IS...
 
I was in exactly that position not too long ago! As much as I wanted the 70-200 f/4, I opted for the 70-300 IS instead. I do a fair bit of wildlife, and I knew I would miss the extra 100mm if I got the 70-200.

I considered adding a x1.4 teleconverter, but then it's still only 280mm f/5.6, and considering degradation caused by the TC and £150 less in the wallet, I decided the 70-300 was for me! I've got plenty of photos on flickr with the 70-300 which I'd be more than happy to point you towards if you'd like?

My advice would be to get the 70-300 for now (but start saving up for the 70-200 f/2.8 if you're still getting the L cravings)! It's what I'm doing!
 
I'd actually say the 70-200 would be too short at most circuits to get anything like a frame filling shot even on a crop sensor body.

There are places at some circuits 200mm is long enough, but not that many (of the ones I have been to!)

You can work it out for yourself if you use one of those field of view calculator thingies and punched in the length of a car or bike.... assuming of course you know your circuits well enough to judge distances...

70-300 IS is pretty damned good, not quite so good right at the long end, but up to about 250mm its as good as any zoom I have seen, assuming of course you don't want wide aperture shots (because is f5.6 from about 230mm~)
 
Thanks everyone ,all food for thought .Think it's looking like the 70-200 £409 ,unless anyone know of a cheaper one :D
 
RichardtheSane said:
The main difference between these two lenses is the tradeoff.

100mm extra + IS vs 1 stop of light.

Would have been tough till you told us the photography you do - the extra stop would take it every time for me and the fact you don't need the long reach as much means it is IS vs 1 stop.
Click to expand...

Not quite true, at 200mm the 70-300 is f/5, meaning half a stop, and with the 3(?) stop advantage of the IS it's a whole different ball game. (Unless of course the 70-200 f/4 IS is picked).

On the subject of which one also factor in focus speed, with fast moving objects it can be a real pain if you can't focus in time.
 
Amp34 said:
Not quite true, at 200mm the 70-300 is f/5, meaning half a stop, and with the 3(?) stop advantage of the IS it's a whole different ball game. (Unless of course the 70-200 f/4 IS is picked).

On the subject of which one also factor in focus speed, with fast moving objects it can be a real pain if you can't focus in time.
Click to expand...


I would imagine the 70-200 f4 would be faster ,or at least quicker at locking on so to speak to the subject than the 70-300 IS ... or am i wrong ....(information overload :D) oooooh me heads going to burst :D
 
Having used both the 70-200 2.8 and the 70-300 IS, I'd say there's not much in terms of focus speed... certainly the 70-300 IS is not so slow its unsuitable for high speed motorsport (eg superbike or DTM or A1GP)
 
Just bought a 70-300 IS and will have it at the WRC Ireland this weekend so hopefully it does the job!
 
Thanks everyone for all your input and advise ... Bought a lens last night :thumbs:
 
mxfun said:
Thanks everyone for all your input and advise ... Bought a lens last night :thumbs:
Click to expand...
Ooooh you're such a tease :naughty: - Care to share what one you decided on :wave:
Paul
 
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Ex and it's a corker :D
 
slideordie said:
Just bought a 70-300 IS and will have it at the WRC Ireland this weekend so hopefully it does the job!
Click to expand...

Reckon it will do you proud. Don't forget to post your shots in the motorsport section so we can see!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top