Canon zoom lenses?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RoundSquare, Dec 1, 2005.

  1. RoundSquare

    RoundSquare Guest

    I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the Canon
    70-200 F4 L USM.
    I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100 cheaper and may fit my
    means better!!
    I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines. Would the L lens give
    noticeably better pictures or would I be better with the image stabiliser
    facility?


    Thanx.
     
    RoundSquare, Dec 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RoundSquare

    Jim Guest

    "RoundSquare" <no@thanks> wrote in message
    news:438f81d0$0$63068$...
    >I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the Canon
    > 70-200 F4 L USM.
    > I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100 cheaper and may fit my
    > means better!!
    > I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines. Would the L lens give
    > noticeably better pictures or would I be better with the image stabiliser
    > facility?
    >
    >
    > Thanx.
    >
    >

    Those made with the L lens, that are in focus, will be noticeably sharper.
    It isn't any easy call. I suspect that a most people would go with the IS
    lens.
    Jim
     
    Jim, Dec 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RoundSquare

    Tim Hobbs Guest

    On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 23:05:42 -0000, "RoundSquare" <no@thanks> wrote:

    >I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the Canon
    >70-200 F4 L USM.
    >I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100 cheaper and may fit my
    >means better!!
    >I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines. Would the L lens give
    >noticeably better pictures or would I be better with the image stabiliser
    >facility?
    >
    >
    >Thanx.
    >


    For sports, IS is of doubtful benefit. The camera may be stable, but
    the subject is moving....

    For a non-full-frame sensor, 200mm should be long enough for touchline
    photography. The extra stop at the long end is also well worth
    having. I'd take the L lens. In fact, I did....
    --
    Tim Hobbs
     
    Tim Hobbs, Dec 1, 2005
    #3
  4. RoundSquare

    BD Guest

    >Would the L lens give noticeably better pictures

    I think you'll see separate camps in that regard: many feel that the L
    lenses provide superior image quality and that's that. End of story.

    But others see added value in the increased range and the added
    flexibility of the IS, at the expense of a tiny bit of image quality.
    Some people have chosen the IS lens over the L lens, knowing full well
    that the L provides better image quality, just because it's not _that_
    big of a difference.

    As for myself, I fall into the latter camp. The new 70-300 does provide
    very good quality - for my purposes it's plenty good. WAAAAAY Better
    than its predecessor, the 75-300IS.

    I'd recommend assessing the difference between the two lenses in the
    same exact circumstance, and comparing them. Try both lenses in the
    store, setting both at 200mm and the same camera settings, using the
    same subject. Take them in RAW mode. To make it a more valid test, use
    a tripod and a remote. Turn the IS off on the 70-300 lens. This will
    show you what quality the IS lens can provide at the functional 'limit'
    that the L lens has. Go home, fire the images up in Photoshop, and
    simply compare the quality. You will likely see the difference, but
    it's going to be a question of what's more important to you - that
    extra margin of image quality, or the added flexibility of 300mm and
    IS.

    BD
     
    BD, Dec 2, 2005
    #4
  5. RoundSquare

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the Canon
    >70-200 F4 L USM. I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100
    >cheaper and may fit my means better!!
    >I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines. Would the L lens give
    >noticeably better pictures or would I be better with the image stabiliser
    >facility?


    My wife has the 70-200 f/4 L and way back in 1995 when we first
    switched to Canon AF gear we got the 75-300 IS (the first IS lens Canon
    made, as I recall) and used it for a while ... there are two advantages
    to the 75-300, one is the IS and the other is the extra reach out to
    300 mm. There are two disadvantages, the image quality is OK thru most
    of the focal range but a bit soft at the edges at 300 mm wide open,
    which is typically where you'd use it. And the 75-300 lacks USM which
    means it is very slow to auto-focus compared to the 70-200 f/4, which
    seems almost instantaneous. A non-USM long lens will search slowly for
    AF and you'll miss a lot of shots (we initially tried to use it while
    marlin fishing to photograph jumping fish and finally had to switch to
    something better). So I think you'll miss a lot of shots due to the
    slow AF.

    I'd get the 70-200 and if you find you need a bit more reach get the
    Canon 1.4x converter for it.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Dec 2, 2005
    #5
  6. RoundSquare

    Skip M Guest

    "RoundSquare" <no@thanks> wrote in message
    news:438f81d0$0$63068$...
    >I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the Canon
    > 70-200 F4 L USM.
    > I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100 cheaper and may fit my
    > means better!!
    > I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines. Would the L lens give
    > noticeably better pictures or would I be better with the image stabiliser
    > facility?
    >
    >
    > Thanx.
    >
    >

    IIRC, the 70-300 lacks a "panning mode" on its IS, like the 70-200 and
    100-400 have, so that might limit the lens' usefulness for sports, since
    you'd have to turn off the IS to use it to shoot soccer. And the 70-200 is
    faster at 200mm than the 70-300 is, so you could use a marginally faster
    shutter speed on the 70-200.
    A 1.4x teleconverter will get you close to the range of the 70-300, if you
    really need that reach.
    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Dec 2, 2005
    #6
  7. RoundSquare

    Guest

    , Dec 2, 2005
    #7
  8. RoundSquare

    RON Guest

    What about the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L USM Lens ?

    This is an great sports lens. On a 20 D you are getting 112-320mm. I have
    one and have used it for night football at the high school where the
    lighting is bad. Got some great shots.Remember when buying glass that money
    comes and goes but great pictures last a life time.

    "RoundSquare" <no@thanks> wrote in message
    news:438f81d0$0$63068$...
    >I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the Canon
    > 70-200 F4 L USM.
    > I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100 cheaper and may fit my
    > means better!!
    > I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines. Would the L lens give
    > noticeably better pictures or would I be better with the image stabiliser
    > facility?
    >
    >
    > Thanx.
    >
    >
     
    RON, Dec 2, 2005
    #8
  9. RoundSquare

    DHB Guest

    On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 23:05:42 -0000, "RoundSquare" <no@thanks> wrote:

    > I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the Canon70-200 F4 L USM.
    >
    > I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100 cheaper and may fit my means better!!
    >
    > I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines.
    >
    > Would the L lens give noticeably better pictures or would I be better with the image stabiliser
    >facility?
    >
    >
    >Thanx.
    >

    Just ordered & received Canon's new 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM
    lens. Unfortunately the last 3 days that I have had it, the weather &
    my available time has not allowed me much time to use it other than to
    take a few quick pictures with it, mostly @ the 300mm end where I am
    most interested in it's performance.

    In answer to your question(s), it depends a lot upon your
    camera, your abilities & how far away you will be from the action you
    wish to record. The Image Stabilization (IS) is designed to correct
    for camera movement, not the movement of your subjects. So it will be
    of little or no use recording soccer from the sidelines. If your
    subject is moving directly horizontally relative to you, you can
    switch IS to mode 2 where it will only stabilize some of your vertical
    camera movement, letting you pan (track) your subject horizontally.

    Also this lens has 2 potential negatives, neither of which are
    much of a problem for most of what I intend to do with mine.

    1> The front element rotates when it focuses.

    2> It does not have a ring type USM focusing mechanism, so no
    Full Time Manual Focus (FTMF) & this also makes it slower to focus,
    especially @ the long end of the telephoto zoom range.

    For more info. into rotating front elements see the thread
    listed that got very good explanations of this when using certain
    filters such as a polarizer or a graduated Neutral Density filter.

    Thus far my very limited 1st impressions of this lens are very
    good for "my" primary intended uses but it may not be the best choice
    for "you" & "your needs". If the Canon 70-200 f4 L USM has ring type
    USM focusing, which I believe it does, & it can provide enough reach
    for "your needs", than it sounds like the better choice for "you".

    If your using it on a crop factored DSLR, that needs to be
    taken into account too. My humble Canon Digital Rebel/300D has an
    1.6x crop factor, making the field of view similar to a 480mm lens
    used on a full frame DSLR or film body. So 200mm would be basically
    similar to 320mm, on my DSLR which is likely more than enough reach
    from the sidelines. If not using IS @ all, than a mono pod or tripod
    may prove helpful as well.

    A single additional characteristic of this lens that I was
    expecting is lens creep. Point the lens strait down & gravity will
    pull it to the full telephoto end, 300mm. This I knew about & was
    expecting but as obvious as it "should" have been, I was initially
    surprised when the opposite happened today when @ full 300mm taking a
    belly shot of a high flying jet airplane strait up. The lens slipped
    suddenly back to it's 70mm setting, I was not expecting that but it
    was strait up, so I "should" have expected it. Sometimes we, "I" miss
    the obvious.

    Hope this overly long answer proves helpful to you or others.

    Respectfully, DHB

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
    or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
    is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
    to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
     
    DHB, Dec 2, 2005
    #9
  10. In article <> writes:
    $On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 23:05:42 -0000, "RoundSquare" <no@thanks> wrote:
    $>I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the Canon
    $>70-200 F4 L USM.
    $>I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100 cheaper and may fit my
    $>means better!!
    $>I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines. Would the L lens give
    $>noticeably better pictures or would I be better with the image stabiliser
    $>facility?
    $
    $For sports, IS is of doubtful benefit. The camera may be stable, but
    $the subject is moving....

    Check to see whether the 70-300 has IS mode 2. Mode 2 is for
    use when panning; it detects the plane of panning (horizontal
    or vertical) and stabilizes the perpendicular plane. This would be
    good for many sports, probably including soccer. It won't get you a
    faster shutter speed, but if you want the effect of a motion-blurred
    background with a sharp subject (or a sharp subject with some motion
    blur in their moving appendages), it certainly won't get in the way.

    That said, the 70-200 focuses quickly; the 70-300, while
    faster in this regard than its predecessor, won't keep up. It
    uses a weaker motor and has more glass to move, since it moves
    the front elements (the largest ones) while the 70-200 moves
    some internal elements (not the largest ones). Glass is
    heavy, and the less of it you have to move, the quicker AF will
    be.

    As well, while the new 70-300 seems to be a substantial improvement
    over the optics of its predecessor, I suspect the 70-200 will be
    sharper. Plus, it's a stop faster, so for the times when you _do_
    need to freeze motion, the 70-200 can do it better than the 70-300
    can.
    --
    Stephen M. Dunn <>
    >>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/
     
    Stephen M. Dunn, Dec 2, 2005
    #10
  11. RoundSquare

    BD Guest

    Please be sure you distinguish between the 75-300 and the 70-300. The
    70-300 is newer and considerably sharper.

    Fredmiranda.com's review page gives it a respectable 9.1 out of 10
    rating; where the older 75-300 lens gets a pretty flimsy 6.5 out of 10.

    DW
     
    BD, Dec 2, 2005
    #11
  12. RoundSquare

    BD Guest

    >Check to see whether the 70-300 has IS mode 2.

    The 70-300 IS _does_ have IS mode 2.

    DW
     
    BD, Dec 2, 2005
    #12
  13. Stephen M. Dunn wrote:

    > In article <>
    > writes: $On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 23:05:42 -0000, "RoundSquare" <no@thanks>
    > wrote: $>I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the
    > Canon $>70-200 F4 L USM.
    > $>I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100 cheaper and may fit
    > my $>means better!!
    > $>I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines. Would the L lens give
    > $>noticeably better pictures or would I be better with the image
    > stabiliser $>facility?
    > $
    > $For sports, IS is of doubtful benefit. The camera may be stable, but
    > $the subject is moving....
    >
    > Check to see whether the 70-300 has IS mode 2. Mode 2 is for
    > use when panning; it detects the plane of panning (horizontal
    > or vertical) and stabilizes the perpendicular plane. This would be
    > good for many sports, probably including soccer. It won't get you a
    > faster shutter speed, but if you want the effect of a motion-blurred
    > background with a sharp subject (or a sharp subject with some motion
    > blur in their moving appendages), it certainly won't get in the way.


    I use the IS Mode 2 when taking pictures from bicycle races using the 70-200
    2.7 L IS lense. Seem to work OK during difficult light conditions.

    --
    Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
    http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/dahls/Foto/
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Dahl-Stamnes, Dec 2, 2005
    #13
  14. RoundSquare

    RoundSquare Guest

    "RoundSquare" <no@thanks> wrote in message
    news:438f81d0$0$63068$...
    > I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the Canon
    > 70-200 F4 L USM.
    > I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100 cheaper and may fit my
    > means better!!
    > I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines. Would the L lens give
    > noticeably better pictures or would I be better with the image stabiliser
    > facility?



    Once again guys, many thanks for the very informative replies.
    I'm hopefully going to get along to Jessops and try out both lenses if they
    have them in stock.
    Although it looks like from most of the replies that I would benefit more
    from the 70-200 F4 L lens. So will probably go down that route.

    Thanks again.
     
    RoundSquare, Dec 3, 2005
    #14
  15. RoundSquare

    ½ Confused Guest

    On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 23:05:42 -0000
    In message <438f81d0$0$63068$>
    "RoundSquare" <no@thanks> wrote:

    > I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the Canon
    > 70-200 F4 L USM.
    > I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100 cheaper and may fit my
    > means better!!


    KEY COMMENT:

    > I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines.
    > <snip>


    Don't short change yourself.

    EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens. Worth every euro.

    Jeff
     
    ½ Confused, Dec 4, 2005
    #15
  16. RoundSquare

    RON Guest

    Thats what I told him


    "½ Confused" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 23:05:42 -0000
    > In message <438f81d0$0$63068$>
    > "RoundSquare" <no@thanks> wrote:
    >
    >> I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the Canon
    >> 70-200 F4 L USM.
    >> I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100 cheaper and may fit my
    >> means better!!

    >
    > KEY COMMENT:
    >
    >> I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines.
    >> <snip>

    >
    > Don't short change yourself.
    >
    > EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens. Worth every euro.
    >
    > Jeff
     
    RON, Dec 4, 2005
    #16
  17. RoundSquare

    Bill Guest

    RoundSquare wrote:

    >I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the Canon
    >70-200 F4 L USM.
    >I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100 cheaper and may fit my
    >means better!!


    I too considered the 70-300...until I got my hands on one and did some
    test shots. I was hoping it would be good enough, but the only thing I
    liked about the lense was the IS feature and more reach.

    The image quality wasn't there to justify the cost, especially since I
    already have the excellent 70-200 f/4 L.

    >I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines. Would the L lens give
    >noticeably better pictures or would I be better with the image stabiliser
    >facility?


    While the IS might help a bit, the image quality just isn't there when
    you use the 70-300 wide open. Sure it's a bit better than the model it
    replaced, but it doesn't get sharp until you stop down to f/8. If you
    have to stop down, you lose a lot of speed. And speed is an issue with
    sports. So is the slow autofocus. There's also noticeable CA with the
    70-300, and compared to the L lense, less contrast and much lower
    resolution.

    Now if you all you intend to do is take snapshots to print at 4x6 for
    family/friends, then the lower image quality of the 70-300 might be good
    enough.

    But if you want GOOD images, the 70-200 f/4 L will really impress you.
     
    Bill, Dec 4, 2005
    #17
  18. RoundSquare

    Miles Ahead Guest

    I realize this is a step up in price, but how does the 70-300 DO IS f4.5
    rate in this comparison?

    "Bill" <> wrote in message news:...
    > RoundSquare wrote:
    >
    >>I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the Canon
    >>70-200 F4 L USM.
    >>I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100 cheaper and may fit my
    >>means better!!

    >
    > I too considered the 70-300...until I got my hands on one and did some
    > test shots. I was hoping it would be good enough, but the only thing I
    > liked about the lense was the IS feature and more reach.
    >
    > The image quality wasn't there to justify the cost, especially since I
    > already have the excellent 70-200 f/4 L.
    >
    >>I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines. Would the L lens give
    >>noticeably better pictures or would I be better with the image stabiliser
    >>facility?

    >
    > While the IS might help a bit, the image quality just isn't there when
    > you use the 70-300 wide open. Sure it's a bit better than the model it
    > replaced, but it doesn't get sharp until you stop down to f/8. If you
    > have to stop down, you lose a lot of speed. And speed is an issue with
    > sports. So is the slow autofocus. There's also noticeable CA with the
    > 70-300, and compared to the L lense, less contrast and much lower
    > resolution.
    >
    > Now if you all you intend to do is take snapshots to print at 4x6 for
    > family/friends, then the lower image quality of the 70-300 might be good
    > enough.
    >
    > But if you want GOOD images, the 70-200 f/4 L will really impress you.
     
    Miles Ahead, Dec 5, 2005
    #18
  19. RoundSquare

    Bill Guest

    Miles Ahead wrote:

    >> Now if you all you intend to do is take snapshots to print at 4x6 for
    >> family/friends, then the lower image quality of the 70-300 might be good
    >> enough.
    >>
    >> But if you want GOOD images, the 70-200 f/4 L will really impress you.

    >
    >I realize this is a step up in price, but how does the 70-300 DO IS f4.5
    >rate in this comparison?


    In my opinion (and many others), it doesn't compare at all. The 70-200
    f/4 L is better in every way.

    The first time you take a portrait shot at 70+mm with the DO lense and
    see the horrid bokeh, you'll wish you bought the L lense. The 70-200 is
    sharp wide open while the DO is not, DO resolution is down, etc.

    And don't forget the cost...I think the DO is way overpriced for what
    you get. For the same money, you can pickup the 70-200 f/2.8 L.

    The only things I like about the DO is size, reach, and IS. But none of
    that matters if good optics is what you want. If you want good images,
    don't hesitate - get the 70-200 f/4 L, or if you're willing to cough up
    the money, the f/2.8 version.
     
    Bill, Dec 6, 2005
    #19
  20. RoundSquare

    ½ Confused Guest

    That's what I told him. :)

    On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 07:31:40 -0800
    In message <>
    Posted from
    "RON" <> wrote:

    > Thats what I told him
    >
    >
    > "½ Confused" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 23:05:42 -0000
    > > In message <438f81d0$0$63068$>
    > > "RoundSquare" <no@thanks> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I thought I'd made my mind up about lenses and was going for the Canon
    > >> 70-200 F4 L USM.
    > >> I now see the Canon 70-300 IS F4-5.6 is about £100 cheaper and may fit my
    > >> means better!!

    > >
    > > KEY COMMENT:
    > >
    > >> I shoot soccer photography from the sidelines.
    > >> <snip>

    > >
    > > Don't short change yourself.
    > >
    > > EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens. Worth every euro.
    > >
    > > Jeff

    >
     
    ½ Confused, Dec 7, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ronny Svensson

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Ronny Svensson, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    948
    Ronny Svensson
    Aug 23, 2003
  2. Stefan Patric

    Re: Difference between C-40 zoom [D-40 zoom] and c-4000 zoom

    Stefan Patric, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    819
    Stefan Patric
    Aug 23, 2003
  3. Matt

    Canon EF-S Telephoto Zoom Lenses?

    Matt, Nov 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    75
    Views:
    1,144
    Confused
    Dec 5, 2004
  4. Joe Smith
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    403
  5. Russell

    Canon 'L' Lenses V non 'L' Lenses

    Russell, Apr 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    702
    Matt Ion
    Apr 30, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page