Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canon 70-300L IS upgrade?

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

  • Jan-Jasinski
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rick C
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan-Jasinski
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • B7772ADL
    replied
    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)?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bjorn1979
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Felipe Garcia
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan-Jasinski
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Rick C
    replied
    Simpleboy,
    Thanks. I am familiar with that site and supports my belief that the new lens is superior over 100-300mm
    Rick

    Leave a comment:


  • Simpleboy
    replied
    I know this is only taking one sample of each lens, but how about comparing them here

    From what i gather with that, the 70-300L is the sharper lens.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rick C
    replied
    Guys,
    Thanks for the replies with many valid points. Although I have seen both lens I have not handled them, however weight and size I dont believe is an issue for me. It comes down to two points:- image quality throughout the range, 70-100 or 300-400? Most reviews have the 70-300L on top for image quality as you would expect from L glass 12 years newer. Personally although I would like the longer end for that "what if moment" I know that I cannot do without the wide end. At what point do 100-400 users consider the focal length turns soft? This narrows the gap.
    I will visit my local camera shop this week and try to make a decision. For those that are interested I will post my decision.
    Richard, 600mm!! Brilliant but limited and not in competition with the 2 zooms. I have thought of a lesser prime but too limiting for my use.
    Regards, Rick

    Leave a comment:


  • B7772ADL
    replied
    Originally posted by Jan-Jasinski View Post
    But the IQ of the 100-400L is still better
    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?

    and I would go for it with a 1.4 TC. the 2x is no good, tried that yesterday and trying to spot a plane while Manual focusing is extremely hard!!
    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.

    I would then go for the 500F/4L though..
    First sensible thing you've said in that reply

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard M. A. Wood
    replied
    I have used the 100-400 for about 5 years now...good results most of the time. Not to get off topic, if you want more reach, and can invest some money, try a prime lens. It forces you to rethink on composition..but razor sharp images.

    EF600 f4 for example.....light-weight, compact and great results!

    Leave a comment:


  • yash777
    replied
    Brian, the link for 70-300L gives 47000 photos!

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    Originally posted by Rick C View Post
    ......It would be great to see some shots on JP.Net taken with the 70-300L IS. Anyone spotted any yet?.......
    Cheers, Rick C




    Here's 17 images to look at for the 70-300L IS......http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos....e=1&display=15

    ...and for the 100-400L IS....um, er, quite a lot !! ..... http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos....e=1&display=15

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan-Jasinski
    replied
    I have to be honest though, holding the 100-400L was heavy for a 13 (almost 14) year old kid, my back was quite sore. The 70-300L is compact and has z zoom barrel instead of push pull which is more comfortable. But the IQ of the 100-400L is still better and I would go for it with a 1.4 TC. the 2x is no good, tried that yesterday and trying to spot a plane while Manual focusing is extremely hard!! The 200-400L will be around 8K so that is something i'm sure you cannot get. I would then go for the 500F/4L though. If you want to see shots taken with one of those lenses then in the search box where it says category, choose lens and type in the "keyword" box 100-400L or 70-300L.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X