/////70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ? Or not ?
70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ? Or not ?2010-11-24T09:26:53+00:00

Explore Forums Discussions Camera Equipment SLR/DSLR Lenses 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ? Or not ?

70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM ? Or not ?

  • Author
    Posts
  • Johann van Staden
    Participant
    Post count: 283

    Some advice would be appreciated. I have a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS), using a 350D body. I find the 70-200 too short under certain circumstances, and would like a little more reach. I consider (2nd hand) a good Sigma 80-400, or 150-500, but these are few – and my budget (preferably < R 5 K) is also a constraining factor. My questions :

    1. Would the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS be complementary to the 70-200, or too much of an overlap ?
    2. Would a 1.4 or 2.0 extender be a better option, given the scenario ?
    3. Should I be more patient and wait until a good Sigma appears ?
    4. Any other reasonable options / suggestions ?
  • Anonymous
    Participant
    Post count: 2156

    @johannvs 223581 wrote:

    Some advice would be appreciated. I have a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (no IS), using a 350D body. I find the 70-200 too short under certain circumstances, and would like a little more reach. I consider (2nd hand) a good Sigma 80-400, or 150-500, but these are few – and my budget (preferably < R 5 K) is also a constraining factor. My questions :

    1. Would the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS be complementary to the 70-200, or too much of an overlap ?
    2. Would a 1.4 or 2.0 extender be a better option, given the scenario ?
    3. Should I be more patient and wait until a good Sigma appears ?
    4. Any other reasonable options / suggestions ?

    I use a 1.4xTC on my 70-200 f/4 quite regularly and I’ve always been satisfied with the results.

  • squirrel
    Participant
    Post count: 832

    I would definitely get a 1.4 converter much rather than the 70-300. You could even try a 2X converter. You will loose quality with the 2X, but it will still be at least as good as a consumer zoom, possibly still better.

  • Andrew Roos
    Participant
    Post count: 964

    You would be better off leveraging the excellent optics you already have. I second the 1.4x TC (although would be a bit wary of 2X).

  • Kyle S
    Participant
    Post count: 58

    I’m am not going to disagree with the 1.4xTC…:) I had to make a decision between the 70-200 F4 non IS (which you all ready have) and the 70-300 IS USM. I bought the 70-300 in the end and am not dissapointed at all…
    Just another thing with a 1.4x TC it becomes 98-280 f/5.6, So I want to know isnt it better to go for the 70-300 for more zoom and at 70mm it is f4 and 70-200(98-280) f5.6 all the way.
    can someone help me and or prove me wrong:o

    I am not a pro yet:D so still have a lot of questions

  • Anonymous
    Participant
    Post count: 2156

    @Kyle S 223590 wrote:

    Just another thing with a 1.4x TC it becomes 98-280 f/5.6, So I want to know isnt it better to go for the 70-300 for more zoom and at 70mm it is f4 and 70-200(98-280) f5.6 all the way.
    can someone help me and or prove me wrong:o

    I am not a pro yet:D so still have a lot of questions

    Remember that from 70-200 you can forgo the TC and keep your f/4. Is only the 200-280 where you’re at f/5.6. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • HiltonP
    Participant
    Post count: 1696

    I’d vote for the 1.4x t/c . . . reason being that it gives you the best of all worlds. You still have a 70-200 f2.8, you get a 98-280 f4 when needed, and the t/c can also be used on any future L lenses.

  • Kyle S
    Participant
    Post count: 58

    Sorry:o was looking at williams f4 but we are talking about johannvs’s f2.8

    Definitely a 1.4 or 2x TC for the F2.8
    Sorry again

  • Johann van Staden
    Participant
    Post count: 283

    Thanks everybody. That settles it – just about… ๐Ÿ™‚

    I think a 2.0 II would be ok for me.

    Anybody know of a good 1.4 or 2.0 II going for a good price ? ๐Ÿ˜‰

  • Andrew Roos
    Participant
    Post count: 964

    Unanimous – that must be a first for ODP!

  • CarlS
    Participant
    Post count: 76

    @johannvs 223602 wrote:

    Thanks everybody. That settles it – just about… ๐Ÿ™‚

    I think a 2.0 II would be ok for me.

    Anybody know of a good 1.4 or 2.0 II going for a good price ? ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Maybe give the ODP shop a call, they may have in the 2nd hand cabinet.

  • Johann van Staden
    Participant
    Post count: 283

    Will do CarlS,

    Thanks for the suggestion.

  • quicksilver
    Participant
    Post count: 268

    @squirrel 223584 wrote:

    I would definitely get a 1.4 converter much rather than the 70-300. You could even try a 2X converter. You will loose quality with the 2X, but it will still be at least as good as a consumer zoom, possibly still better.

    Johann, the physics of the optics says its impossible to not lose some quality when doubling the intended focal length, even with an awesome lens like the 70-200/2.8.

    That said, a 1.4x certainly. The 2.0x …. not a mk I perhaps not even the mk II.

    However, Canon are claiming near-lossless quality on their mk III extenders that are just now going on sale in SA (most places are around 5100 still). I’m waiting for it to show up for rental so I can testdrive it first, but my curiosity is definitely piqued.
    ๐Ÿ˜€

    I’m in much the same boat as you, wanting to extend the reach of my 70-200/2.8 and would rather go with the TCs for now. Later I’ll replace the further end of the range with a 300/4 and 400/5.6 to bypass the need for a 2.0x.

  • Johann van Staden
    Participant
    Post count: 283

    Thanks quicksilver,

    I think (almost convinced) that a 2.0x II will be good enough for me. The III is certainly outside of my budget at the moment.

    …but a good, affordable, of for that matter, no 2.0x or even 1.4x is currently appearing on the Classifieds radar…

  • GroenHoender
    Participant
    Post count: 946

    Remember: any extender will always cause the lens to lose a stop or two, depending on the extender. The lesser the stop loss, the better, which is why I would rather go for the 1.4 than the 2.0

    Or you could wait a bit for the new 70-300 IS L lens – and nope, it is not a joke.

    Saw on Facebook that Roger recently did some tests with it and according to him, its performance was very good and that in comparison, it did rather very well against the 70-200 lenses and would even give the 100-400 lens some good competition!

  • Kyle S
    Participant
    Post count: 58

    Also saw 70-300 IS USM L. I just bought the 70-300 IS USM about 2 months ago… Should’ve waited a bit for that one although it is quite expensive:)

  • quicksilver
    Participant
    Post count: 268

    @Kyle S 223773 wrote:

    Also saw 70-300 IS USM L. I just bought the 70-300 IS USM about 2 months ago… Should’ve waited a bit for that one although it is quite expensive:)

    Yeah, I was going to mention that one but it’s way outside the stated budget. However it is getting rave reviews around the world, many describing the sharpness as very close to that of the 70-200/2.8 …. now that’s a badge of honor for any zoom lens!

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.Log In

People Who Like Thisx

Loading...