Would you change a 70-200 for a 70-300?

Vertigo

Vertigo

Vertigo

Soldato
Joined
28 Dec 2003
Posts
16,612
I currently have a Canon 70-200 f/4L IS which I love to bits, but quite often I find myself wanting a bit more reach.

Two possibilities present themselves. Either I could get a 1.4x extender to use with it when I need to, giving me up to 280mm at f/5.6. Or I could change the lens entirely and get a 70-300L instead.

I've read up on the pros and cons of each scenario but was just wondering what others thought and what you'd do. I'd be especially interested if anyone else has used both of these lenses.
 
I'm not familiar with Canon glass, is the 70-300 a variable aperture lens? If so, I'd find out how the aperture changes throughout the range. If it's at f5.6 for most of the time then I'd say go for the 1.4x TC and 70-200 combo, no doubt the AF in that lens is better. If it doesn't change until it nears the 300mm mark then you'd have to weigh up the AF performance.

Not a great help, I know, but something to think about.
 
Yeah it's f/4 to f/5.6. It's f/4 until about 156mm I believe, then f/4.5 until beyond 200mm, so aperture-wise, I'd be sacrificing a third of a stop in the 156-200mm range compared to the 70-200.

TBH I'm only considering it half-heartedly. Whilst the 70-300 is a great lens and offers more reach, I don't like the extending barrel nor the variable aperture. Also, I have access to both the 1.4x and 2.0x converters from a friend if and when I need them.

What I really want to do, much as I keep trying to deny it, is switch to the 70-200 f/2.8 II :D
 
Last edited:
why not hire the 70-300 for a couple of days, borrow the 1.4x from your friend and compare the two yourself? see which you prefer hands on? :)
 
If I was in your shoes I would save a little harder and get the 70-200 mk2 2.8. Would so love this lens but my wife will punch my face in if I get it.................... Be worth it though!
 
Wouldn't get the 70-300L personally. Id get a second hand sigma 150-500 f5.6-6.3 instead as its a very well regarded lens at a nice price point. Its loved by bird watchers and aviation fans. Keep the 70-200 as a walkabout lens.
 
I'm afraid I've had two bad experiences with Sigma and so won't go near them again. If you get a good one then they can be awesome but their quality control is a joke to be honest.
 
I presume either you made this thread or at least have read it?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=418979

But if not, there it is. :)

gary996 said:
If I was in your shoes I would save a little harder and get the 70-200 mk2 2.8. Would so love this lens but my wife will punch my face in if I get it.................... Be worth it though!
Click to expand...

Significantly more expensive and I realised since posting in the above thread heavier and bigger too.

I'm very interested in this option as well, even though I did poo poo it when it came out!
 
Interestingly I'd not seen that thread but will have a read :)

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II is very appealing but it's a lot of money for effectively one stop of light over my current f/4 IS. However it takes the extenders well and gives a lot of flexibility, such as 280mm at f/4 and 400mm at f/5.6 but still with very decent quality. Think this is definitely the right route to go, I just need to accept it financially :D
 
Vertigo1 said:
I currently have a Canon 70-200 f/4L IS which I love to bits, but quite often I find myself wanting a bit more reach.

Two possibilities present themselves. Either I could get a 1.4x extender to use with it when I need to, giving me up to 280mm at f/5.6. Or I could change the lens entirely and get a 70-300L instead.

I've read up on the pros and cons of each scenario but was just wondering what others thought and what you'd do. I'd be especially interested if anyone else has used both of these lenses.
Click to expand...

I own both a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 70-300 f/5.6 VR. I really love the images from the f/2.8 but to be honest, if I had to sell 1 lens and keep the other it would have to be selling the 2.8 and keeping the 70-300, it is just more flexible, 90% of the IQ at least, sufficiently fast AF, is light and portable and has sufficient reach.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Interestingly I'd not seen that thread but will have a read :)

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II is very appealing but it's a lot of money for effectively one stop of light over my current f/4 IS. However it takes the extenders well and gives a lot of flexibility, such as 280mm at f/4 and 400mm at f/5.6 but still with very decent quality. Think this is definitely the right route to go, I just need to accept it financially :D
Click to expand...

This is the route I went, although I'm slumming it with dirt cheap TC's. Ultimately I'll probably pick up a dedicated long lens, but for now I'm happy.
 
Holy thread resurrection Batman!

Well I never did swap out my 70-200. I realised that I didn't want the extending, variable aperture lens that was the 70-300, good though it is, and that ultimately what I was after was the 70-200 f/2.8 II.

So, nearly a year later, I've finally taken the plunge. Should be here on Monday - can't wait :D

For the aforementioned flexibility, I have access to both Mk2 extenders for now but will probably buy a 1.4x Mk3 in due course :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom