Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canon 70-300L IS upgrade?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by B7772ADL View Post
    Have you tried using a 70-300L and a 100-400 side by side? I would like to see your photos if you have. Or is this you just summising again on what other people have said rather than your real world experience?



    You'd advise purchasing a 100-400 with a 1.4x? Very, very interesting that. I found even using a 1.4x with the 100-400 a pretty pointless excercise due to the AF limitations and massive drop in IQ. Why suggest you need to buy a TC with a 100-400? Most of the time it wouldn't be used. I do agree about the 2x though, it was bad.



    First sensible thing you've said in that reply
    I have used both of those lenses and find the 70-300L kinda rubbish... The 100-400L proved to be a better winner. No photos unfortunately.

    The 1.4 TC would be a nice addition if you wanted to do contrail spotting or get the extra range while spotting.

    This shot was taken with the 100-400L and a Kenko 1.4 TC and that is some good result IMO!

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/rapics/...in/photostream

    I was hoping to get the 70-200f/2.8L and 2x but I think i'll get the 100-400L since aviation is my prime subject! The following shot was taken Friday with a 90% crop, 1200px wide, I can read the registration. That's pretty good. So 1.4 TC would get you even closer which would be nice for contrails which are further. The thing I noticed yesterday though was that the push pull was hard to use, I tried to make it less tight but had difficulties nevertheless. Perhaps the copy I used was the problem?

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/janjasi...in/photostream
    Flickr |Airliners.Net | Airplane-Pictures.Net | Jetphotos.Net

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Jan-Jasinski View Post
      I have used both of those lenses and find the 70-300L kinda rubbish... The 100-400L proved to be a better winner. No photos unfortunately.

      The 1.4 TC would be a nice addition if you wanted to do contrail spotting or get the extra range while spotting.
      Have you shot at an airshow? say the Thunderbirds? I wanna see you manually focusing something that's on your screen for a split second.

      How is the 70-300L rubbish? I've heard good reviews, and I've heard that the image quality on the non-L 70-300 is almost as good as an L lens, so I don't think a 70-300L could be rubbish.

      You know Rick, you might wanna see if you can borrow or rent those lenses and try them out at your local airport. Either way you win the IS. You might want to consider the 30mm you would lose on the short end. I have the 70-200 F4L with the 1.4x TC, and the 28mm difference it has on the short end is enough to not be able to get a 747 on the taxiway, so I've had to swap lenses (or the TC) a couple of times. One of my friends complained about that when he upgraded the same lens for the 100-400L
      [SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

      Felipe Garcia

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View Post
        How is the 70-300L rubbish? I've heard good reviews, and I've heard that the image quality on the non-L 70-300 is almost as good as an L lens, so I don't think a 70-300L could be rubbish.
        You're right about that Felipe, the non L 70-300 is alsmost as good as an L lens. I bought the non-L 70-300 in 2006 and i'm still having fun with it together with my 50D.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jan-Jasinski View Post
          I have used both of those lenses and find the 70-300L kinda rubbish... The 100-400L proved to be a better winner. No photos unfortunately.

          Were you definately using the 70-300 L (the new white coloured one) and not the regular 70-300 (black plastic one)?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by B7772ADL View Post
            Were you definately using the 70-300 L (the new white coloured one) and not the regular 70-300 (black plastic one)?
            I have used both. Well I take back the 70-300L is rubbish but for me it certainly isn`t something extraordinary. Does it even come with a hood? Whatever you feel is better in your hands then buy it.
            I am sticking with getting a 100-400L.
            http://www.ephotozine.com/forums/top...-400l-is-87416

            So they say optics are slightly better in the 70-300L but 100mm extra gives a charm and is still sharp at 400mm.
            Flickr |Airliners.Net | Airplane-Pictures.Net | Jetphotos.Net

            Comment


            • #21
              Felipe,
              I agree with you. The 70-100mm range is a must for me not just for everyday shooting but also when I get the rare opportunity for air to air.
              Jan,
              You are fortunate to have sampled both lens. I understand what you say regarding the extra 100mm and that is going to be a huge appeal to me but only if the image quality is similiar.
              Hopefully tomorrow is decision day and if the British weather plays ball then the new toy might get a test at Manchester this weekend.
              Regards,
              Rick

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Rick C View Post
                Felipe,
                I agree with you. The 70-100mm range is a must for me not just for everyday shooting but also when I get the rare opportunity for air to air.
                Jan,
                You are fortunate to have sampled both lens. I understand what you say regarding the extra 100mm and that is going to be a huge appeal to me but only if the image quality is similiar.
                Hopefully tomorrow is decision day and if the British weather plays ball then the new toy might get a test at Manchester this weekend.
                Regards,
                Rick
                Having 250mm now is nice but sometimes not enough for closeup`s and contrails. If I would buy the 70-300L then 50mm wouldn`t help me too much which is why I am aiming for the 100-400L with 150mm extra. The 50-500 OS is just expensive and does not compare to the quality of Canon.
                Flickr |Airliners.Net | Airplane-Pictures.Net | Jetphotos.Net

                Comment


                • #23
                  Rick,

                  I own the 100-400L and have had it for over 7 years now. A lens doesn't stay in my bag for that long unless it's good! I go through phases with mine and often pick up the 70-200F2.8LIS with a 1.4x instead but i know i can always rely on my 100-400 to deliver. Go fro the 100-400 and then maybe add a 24-105 to your bag to complete the range in a two lens kit.

                  Chris
                  Chris Sharps
                  5D3 | 5D2 | 7D | 1D2 | 10D | 400D | 1V | 3
                  17-40F4L | 24-105F4LIS | 70-200F2.8LIS | 100-400LIS
                  24F1.4L II | 50F1.2L | 85F1.2L II | 15F2.8 Fisheye | 50F1.4 | 100F2.8 Macro
                  1.4x | 550EX x2

                  Fuji X100

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    OK I've made the decision!!
                    Listening to all the views I was going for a 3 lens set-up of 24-105/70-200/100-400. The 70-200 had to stay to give me greater overlap.
                    In the shop I was able to spend some time with both lens and compare them at similiar focal lengths 100/200/300 and over a variety of f stops. One lens hit the wow button imediately, the other was extremely dissapointing at 100 and still some way off at 200 & 300. I tried micro adjusting my 50D but to no avail. With only one copy of each I took the plunge for the lens that was vastly superior in image quality - to my eye.
                    I have bought the new 70-300 f4-5.6L IS. Perhaps the 100-400 was a poor copy, perhaps it is simply camera/lens relationship, some are great and some are not. I really wanted to like the 100-400 but it was not to be.
                    Now I have to decide in slow time what to do with my 70-200 f4L.
                    Regards, Rick

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Congrats on the new lens.

                      Please let us know how it performs once you try it out.
                      [SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

                      Felipe Garcia

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Rick C View Post
                        OK I've made the decision!!
                        Listening to all the views I was going for a 3 lens set-up of 24-105/70-200/100-400. The 70-200 had to stay to give me greater overlap.
                        In the shop I was able to spend some time with both lens and compare them at similiar focal lengths 100/200/300 and over a variety of f stops. One lens hit the wow button imediately, the other was extremely dissapointing at 100 and still some way off at 200 & 300. I tried micro adjusting my 50D but to no avail. With only one copy of each I took the plunge for the lens that was vastly superior in image quality - to my eye.
                        I have bought the new 70-300 f4-5.6L IS. Perhaps the 100-400 was a poor copy, perhaps it is simply camera/lens relationship, some are great and some are not. I really wanted to like the 100-400 but it was not to be.
                        Now I have to decide in slow time what to do with my 70-200 f4L.
                        Regards, Rick

                        Congrats! Hope you enjoy your purchase. The 100-400 is a real enigma. There are some amazing copies out there but there are also some very poor ones too. I'm glad you were open to looking at other lens choices. There are some very good alternatives out there if you are willing to compromise a little. Now it's time to go use it!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Congrats, have fun! I am not sure if it takes TC`s but a 1.4 would be nice if you wanted more range.
                          Flickr |Airliners.Net | Airplane-Pictures.Net | Jetphotos.Net

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Jan-Jasinski View Post
                            Congrats, have fun! I am not sure if it takes TC`s but a 1.4 would be nice if you wanted more range.
                            What's the obsession with you suggesting 1.4x TC's? they were invented for a reason, and they are not usually used with the 100-400, 28-300, 70-300, 35-350 for a simple reason. They work great with any flavor of the 70-200 and the 300, 400, 500mm primes, but NOT with those other lenses unless you want to give up a great AF.
                            [SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

                            Felipe Garcia

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Felipe Garcia View Post
                              What's the obsession with you suggesting 1.4x TC's? .

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by yash777 View Post
                                I mean seriously. I could go on every Prius forum and suggest people to lift the heck out of their Prii and put 35" Mud-terrains, but that's not what they were designed for. You could pull it off, but that's beyond the intended design. This is no different.
                                [SIGNATURE GOES HERE]

                                Felipe Garcia

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X