Which Lens

sepulchre

sepulchre

sepulchre

Associate
Joined
30 Sep 2003
Posts
2,098
Location
Not so Sunny Dundee
I'm just booking up my holiday to Costa Rica where I hope to do quite a bit of wildlife photography, with this in mind I'm looking for a new lens, so far I've narrowed this down to either of the following Canon's - 70-200L or the 70-300 IS. Both are around the same kind of money and I'm drawn to both for different reasons.

So any help making my decision would be appeciated!!
 
Choice one: L-series glass, shorter focal length of 112-320mm, constant f/4.0 throughout the zoom, comes with lens hood and carrying case.

Choice two: Not L-series glass, longer focal length of 112-480mm, variable aperture of f/4.0-5.6 throughout the zoom, image stabilisation, lens hood costs extra, no carrying case.

So, do you want a shorter lens with high-quality glass or a longer lens and IS?
 
Last edited:
I personally would go for the 70-300 IS (I am slightly bias as I have the 75-300 IS) unless you could get an IS verson of the 70-200L and get a TC later on. I find I am using the 300 end far more than anything else for wildlife and even then sometimes it isn't long enough. :)
 
Its a tough one this, as you have said do I go with the higher quality glass an no IS or the lower quality glass with IS and longer reach, argh! There are good arguments for both. I'm leaning just now more towards the 70-300 IS but I know if I go down that route there will always be a part of me that wonders how much better an image of the L glass would look. Unfortunately there is no way I can afford the 70-200IS or even the 100-400IS

Has a side by side comparison been done anywhere?
 
Once you have tried L series glass, there is no turning back. Don't buy the 70-200L, as you'll then need to spend all cash replacing all your other lenses with Ls.

NinjaBill (Very Skint L glass addict)
 
sepulchre said:
Has a side by side comparison been done anywhere?
Click to expand...
I can't find you a side-by-side but there's this and this for you to peruse at your leisure.

There's also this which is an old page but leads to a dpreview thread about (I think) the same choice you're trying to make. Take everything you read on dpreview with a substantial pinch of salt as it's usually a load of fanboy cobblers. Read between the lines and there might be something useful for you there.
 
I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and it just doesn't have enough reach for wildlife. I hate to say it but I'd go with the 70-300 if I was in your position and then save up for a Sigma 1.4tc (under £100) to give you 98-420. If there's a good amount of light then it should do very well.

I have the 1.4tc on mine and it's still too short for birds really. You can't get close enough without some sneaky tactics or standing very still for a long time (that's if you have the muscles to hold the thing up for a long time).

I'd say the 70-200 is for cat sized animals upwards at a comfortable distance really.
 
Thanks for the links glitch, I'l have a good read through and think a little further. I've since found the dp thread discussing the 2 fully - here

Mint sauce - I think your right, and most of the animals of intrest to me will be far smaller and a lot more timid, so maybe the extra 100mm will make all the difference.

I'd really like to try the two side by side, but my local (generic) camera shop has neither in stock so tried to sell me the sigma 70-300 ADO lens, which looked good but I really wanted to try the canon lens out.

I'm still leaning towards the 70-300IS. Which after the rebate comes in at £322. :)
 
Last edited:
You may find that a high range zoom goes soft towards the long end of the zoom. If you're going to be shooting at the 300mm end all the time, you may be better going for a dedicated 300mm lens.

I was in a similar dilema to you, and went for the 70-200L f4 non-IS, and a seperate 300mm, which i intend to stick a 1.4x extender on soon.

If youre after taking photos of small animals, youll still have to be fairly close, even with 300mm

canon-lens-300-f4.0-l-is-usm-lrg.jpg
Mmmmmm 300mm L
 
Last edited:
I know what your saying NinjaBill, and that backs up other comments I've read about the lens going soft at 300mm, but to go down the very nice route you have I would be looking at some serious cash, and tbh this one lens will be my only lens purchase for the rest of the year :( I take it you didnt consider the 100-400L then? (Which I cant afford lol).

Cheers for the link and advice SDK, Thats a good review, obviously its no 100-400L but for the price the results look very good indeed, the reviewer certainly seemed impressed with it! :)
 
Last edited:
sepulchre said:
I know what your saying NinjaBill, and that backs up other comments I've read about the lens going soft at 300mm, but to go down the very nice route you have I would be looking at some serious cash, and tbh this one lens will be my only lens purchase for the rest of the year :( I take it you didnt consider the 100-400L then? (Which I cant afford lol).

Cheers for the link and advice SDK, Thats a good review, obviously its no 100-400L but for the price the results look very good indeed, the reviewer certainly seemed impressed with it! :)
Click to expand...

I did seriously consider the 100-400, but I heard a lot of people unhappy with it, (as well as a lot of people happy with it) but despite searching, I couldn't find anyone with a bad word to say about the 300 prime. Its a jem.
 
300mm Prime all the way! I usually have my 70-200 at 200mm so really, might as well go prime and get the quality. If I had to rebuy the 70-200 I'd now probably opt for a 300mm prime instead and save the rest of the cash! :)

EDIT: Just looked at the L series 2.8 300mm prime. That's a lot of cash :eek:
 
Last edited:
You also need to consider, that if your 70-300 is going to be soft at 300, then you may get a higher quality shot, by using the non-soft 200, and cropping the middle of the shot. A 5mp sharp picture will look better than a 10mp soft picture.

I don't know if you know how close 300mm will get you. I was only about 6m away from this bird when I took this snap, and the frame still isn't quite full.

Totally unprocessed. Straight from camera

http://www.inosys.co.uk/IMG_3665.JPG
 
good point, thanks. I have a 55-200 tamron at the moment so I've got a fair idea of what the 300mm will do in terms of reach, and in terms of IQ it should be far superior to what I have at the moment.
 
I've decided to go with the 70-300IS as it fits into my budget and gives me the extra 100mm I think I'll need on my holiday. Just sorting it with Kerso now :D

/edit..

Picked the lens up from kerso, and had a quick play with it, looks good so far but I hope to test it out properly this weekend. Thanks for the advice guys!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom