75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM v. 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

05/20/2005 09:36:57 AM · #2

I own the 75-200 L and the difference between it and the 75-300 are night and day. If you must have the 300mm distance, the 1.4 extension will get you to 280mm. For me the difference between 200-300 is minimal. I can always re-crop and still have a better image than with the 75-300.

Edit: I have the 75-200 L f/2.8. I got rid of my 75-300 for it.

Message edited by author 2005-05-20 09:37:47.

05/20/2005 10:03:56 AM · #3

bbower, you mean the 70-200.

The 70-200 and 75-300 are as different as good and bad. Sharpness, color saturation, build, constant aperture, the list goes on.

05/20/2005 10:17:29 AM · #4

If you were getting the 75-300 I would recommend the non-IS. It's a LOT cheaper - I don't think the IS is worth the extra money.

I have both the 70-200/2.8L and the 75-300 mkII. Although the 70-200 is is a top-notch lens, the 75-300 still has its place. It's light, convenient and cheap.

For professional shooting I will only use the 70-200, but if I were going on vacation abroad I wouldn't take it because it's just too heavy.

There's a lot of elitism around the 70-200, mainly because it is a kick-ass top quality lens.. In actuality, how many people need that sort of quality?

A friend of mine also has the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX, which I believe is the same price as the 70-200/4L. This is also worth considering - it's excellent quality and wider than the L.

Message edited by author 2005-05-20 10:21:07.

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

05/20/2005 10:19:44 AM · #5

These are absolutly uncomparable lenses... the 75-300 is at the very bottom of the range and you get what you pay for...on the other hand, the 70-200L f4, while not as spectacular as the 2.8 IS will give you a really great piece of glass.. there is absolutly no comparing these lenses.

mor_yoav

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

05/20/2005 11:40:32 AM · #6

Here's an interesting article about the 75-300.
Somewhat positive...

//www.photo.net/equipment/canon/300_compare/

jemison

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/20/2005 11:45:36 AM · #7

Coincidentally, I just posted a thread "Some Doves and a Snail" with images, all of which were taken with my 75-300IS. It may not be the best lense, but for the money I think its pretty good...a bit soft at the extremes of zoom and aperture, but keeping that in mind, it's a fun lens, IMO. There does appear to be a fairly wide margine in quality of this lense from what I gather.

Message edited by author 2005-05-20 11:46:04.

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

05/20/2005 11:46:05 AM · #8

Trey

I would imagine the answer has everything to do with your intended use for the new lens.

I shoot a lot of wildlife and people so IS is a real boon for me and I'd rather sacrifice the sharpness of the L for that reason.

If I were shooting mostly landscapes or studio shots using a tripod IS would be of no interest whatsoever but any added quality in my final image would be of definite interest and the L would win out.

What are the prices and what will you primarily be shooting?

yido

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

05/20/2005 11:58:04 AM · #9

I've used the Canon 75-300 non IS, have a Sigma 70-300, and have a 70-200 f2.8L non IS. I agree, there is a big difference between 200 and 300mm.
However, if you really want the 300mm reach, the Canon 75-300 has poor optics at 300mm. Check out Bob Atkins review of the lens. At 300mm, it's soft even in the center. If you are considering a consumer grade 70-300, I'd recommend the Sigma APO II 70-300. Much sharper and only $200, but no IS and focuses slower.
If you are looking at pro glass like the 70-200 f4L, then consider a 1.4x TC. A cheap on for $80 from Tamron might serve your needs if you intend on using it from time to time but not if you are going to use it all the time. Once again Bob Atkins has reviews of this combo as well.
If you really want a professional 300mm lens, then you should consider Canon 100-300L (about $1300) or a Sigma 120-300 EX (about $1000).

PhotoRyno

Canon EOS-5D

05/20/2005 12:14:22 PM · #10

"If you really want a professional 300mm lens, then you should consider Canon 100-300L (about $1300) or a Sigma 120-300 EX (about $1000)."[/quote]

You can get the canon 100-400L IS for $1400

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art for Canon

05/20/2005 12:32:11 PM · #11

I was under the impression the 100-300L 5.6 was actually closer to $400 now...

postoakinversion

Canon EOS-6D

05/20/2005 12:43:11 PM · #12

I have the 75-300 and don't keep it in my bag any more because my 100mm f/2 (much better quality lens) at 100mm can resolve almost anything the 75-300 can at 300mm. So if you need the 300mm reach, I suspect you'd get better results (especially in terms of sharpness/contrast) by cropping an image from the 70-200L than you would at 300mm with the 75-300.

05/20/2005 02:29:24 PM · #13

Originally posted by kyebosh:

I was under the impression the 100-300L 5.6 was actually closer to $400 now...

Eh?

05/20/2005 02:50:56 PM · #14

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by kyebosh:
I was under the impression the 100-300L 5.6 was actually closer to $400 now...

Eh?

I know somebody who purchased one a few days ago for $475 on ebay. And the people at the other forum thought that was steep.

found one... here

Message edited by author 2005-05-20 14:52:08.

05/20/2005 03:32:47 PM · #15

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

There's a lot of elitism around the 70-200, mainly because it is a kick-ass top quality lens.. In actuality, how many people need that sort of quality?

Yeah who needs quality? Who cares about the difference between good and bad pictures? Who needs sharpness? I'd think twice about using the 75-300 even if someone just handed it to me. Seriously, I need quality!

05/20/2005 03:50:44 PM · #16

Here's two pics. One with my 75-300 mkII non-IS, one with my 70-200/2.8L.

//www.calcaria.net/goodandbad.jpg

Any guesses on which is which?!

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/20/2005 03:59:37 PM · #17

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Here's two pics. One with my 75-300 mkII non-IS, one with my 70-200/2.8L.

//www.calcaria.net/goodandbad.jpg

Any guesses on which is which?!

I would guess the 2nd one is L based on saturation and contrast. You can't really tell sharpness that well from a resampled image of that size...

jemison

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

05/20/2005 04:00:08 PM · #18

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Here's two pics. One with my 75-300 mkII non-IS, one with my 70-200/2.8L.

//www.calcaria.net/goodandbad.jpg

Any guesses on which is which?!

Pretty worthless comparison, if you ask me.

05/20/2005 04:10:31 PM · #19

Originally posted by jemison:

Pretty worthless comparison, if you ask me.

Why?

05/20/2005 04:57:34 PM · #20

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by jemison:
Pretty worthless comparison, if you ask me.

Why?

A good comparison consists of unedited 100% crops from each photo, a pair at the widest aperture at the low end of zoom, high end of zoom, and a few F8 comparisons. Any lens will make a presentable photo if the photo's been resampled.

05/20/2005 05:00:31 PM · #21

Originally posted by Plexxoid:

Any lens will make a presentable photo if the photo's been resampled.

So what you're saying is, for images on the web and small prints it doesn't matter.

Thanks for proving my point.

05/20/2005 05:03:08 PM · #22

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by Plexxoid:
Any lens will make a presentable photo if the photo's been resampled.

So what you're saying is, for images on the web and small prints it doesn't matter.

Thanks for proving my point.

No problem ;)
I print more than small prints though. But I suspect that even the more resolute 70-200 would be detectable in a high quality print, more detail than the 75-300 can capture.

Message edited by author 2005-05-20 17:04:47.

05/20/2005 05:03:56 PM · #23

Originally posted by Plexxoid:

No problem ;)
I print more than small prints though.

And what size do you think you notice, and at what distance?

It's rather like arguing a 4MP camera isn't capable of printing images on a billboard.

Edit: And incidentally, I include 10x8 as a small [ish] print.

Message edited by author 2005-05-20 17:09:45.

05/20/2005 05:05:07 PM · #24

well i don't know about you guys, but i like to think all of my photos should have the potential to become posters.