Canon 70-200F4L +1.4 canon teleconverter v Canon 70-300 IS

Galaxy66

Galaxy66

Jeremy Beadle
Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,190
Name
My name is Mal not Jeremy :)
Edit My Images
Yes
Having just bought the 70-200 but don't know yet whether I will miss the longer reach of the 70-300 which I still have, what would give the best results at full reach.
 
I would have put money on you coming up with the answer Bob :D :thumbs:

I suppose I could always try it to see if I like it.

Or are you just helping me to spend my money:lol::lol::lol:
 
Wow Bob, if I understand those charts right the L with a 2x t/c is still sharper than the 70-300. Just a shame that the AF function will be lost.
 
RichardA said:
Wow Bob, if I understand those charts right the L with a 2x t/c is still sharper than the 70-300. Just a shame that the AF function will be lost.
Click to expand...
The AF should be fine...just a little slower than the native lens

Edit...missed that you were talking about a 2x...sorry

Bob
 
No need to say sorry Bob, I've been reading the reviews on the digital picture website about those exact lenses and had seen that optical comparison feature until you posted the link on this thread. I was just amazed that at 400mm the L lens looks sharper than the other lens at 300mm. Really really tempted to go get the L lens now.
 
The 70-300 with IS might be sharper in my hands than the 70-200 without IS:lol::lol::lol:
 
very interesting lens comparison site that, thanks for posting :thumbs:
 
rgrebby said:
wow the 70-300 IS is pretty poor :(
Click to expand...

Galaxy66 said:
I wouldn't say that exactly, I was quite pleased with these.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=81424
Click to expand...

The 70-300 isn't a bad lens, is just doesn't hold up against this particular L.
It falls somewhere between the 55-250IS and your new 70-200 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx Look at the winter woodland shot just past the page half way point and put the cursor on the legend block below the picture....the 55-250 seems quite soft for a 4.5x zoom

Bob
 
Bob I have not had the chance try out the lens apart from a few shots of the dogs in the back garden, must say first impressions are good, I do like the light weight of it. I would imagine if I had used the 70-200 for those signwriting shots there would have been an improvement despite me saying I was pleased with the 70-300 IS shots.
 
Bob, the 28-300L doesn't stand up very well.

BTW Bob if you had the chance of appearing on mastermind would your chosen subject be Canon Lenses, you would win hands down:)
 
Galaxy66 said:
Bob, the 28-300L doesn't stand up very well.
Click to expand...
At nearly 11x it would be a miracle if it did. The 28-300L and 35-350L give you the luxury of having the right lens to get the shot rather than be saddled with something too short or too long. They are both good for their intended uses but there's a price to pay in £'s and IQ

Galaxy66 said:
BTW Bob if you had the chance of appearing on mastermind would your chosen subject be Canon Lenses, you would win hands down:)
Click to expand...
Bit of a sad git really...a lot of books and too much on-line reading. I've got to fill my head with something now that I'm collecting my pension.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top