Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Wednesday Afternoon Canon Lens debate

M

mrcam216

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 22, 2011
24
0
Whats up my fellow photographer buddies. This is a boring glooming Wednesday afternoon and i'm thinking about adding to my photography collection so I figured i'd see what my MacRumor buddies have to say about what i'm thinking. I always enjoy yawl opinions. (even the rude ones)
So i'm thinking about purchasing that canon 70-300 f 4-5.6L lens. One of the newest lenses out there and cost around $1600. I kinda want the 70-200 2.8L is mark ii, but that freakin thing cost like $2500. (I know it cost to be the boss but damn. lol) Back to the 70-300, I have not found too many reviews, but the ones i have read and youtube videos i've watch points out that it is a nice lens. The F4 thing is what is killing me. I shoot a lot of indoor events and weddings, most of my lenses are 2.8 and lower so I do not have much issues with lighting, (and i also have off camera lighting), but im just wondering if this f4 can perform in low light good with just maybe one on camera flash like a 580ex. Also I was considering the canon 70-200 F4 is since everyone says its tack sharp and it's only like $1200, etc. I have a lot of other lenses but not really a good one in this range. Also i shoot with a canon 7d and 5d ii. So, what yawl think?
 
fcortese

fcortese

macrumors demi-god
Apr 3, 2010
2,219
5,155
Big Sky country
mrcam216 said:
Whats up my fellow photographer buddies. This is a boring glooming Wednesday afternoon and i'm thinking about adding to my photography collection so I figured i'd see what my MacRumor buddies have to say about what i'm thinking. I always enjoy yawl opinions. (even the rude ones)
So i'm thinking about purchasing that canon 70-300 f 4-5.6L lens. One of the newest lenses out there and cost around $1600. I kinda want the 70-200 2.8L is mark ii, but that freakin thing cost like $2500. (I know it cost to be the boss but damn. lol) Back to the 70-300, I have not found too many reviews, but the ones i have read and youtube videos i've watch points out that it is a nice lens. The F4 thing is what is killing me. I shoot a lot of indoor events and weddings, most of my lenses are 2.8 and lower so I do not have much issues with lighting, (and i also have off camera lighting), but im just wondering if this f4 can perform in low light good with just maybe one on camera flash like a 580ex. Also I was considering the canon 70-200 F4 is since everyone says its tack sharp and it's only like $1200, etc. I have a lot of other lenses but not really a good one in this range. Also i shoot with a canon 7d and 5d ii. So, what yawl think?
Click to expand...


I have this lens (if it is the IS USM one) and it works nicely. It has two types of IS-one which you can use for panning which stabalizes as you move the camera horizontally. you have to get used to the zooming since the zoom ring is towards the front end of the lens and the focus ring closer to the camera. Just the opposite of what your used to. There is a very good review at http://www.canonrumors.com. This is what tipped me towards getting this lens which I did just post-Japan earthquake and during a Canon lens rebate.:D Got it at a decent rpice as compared to what it is listed for now. I did get the Kenko x1.4 extender as well although I must confess I have not gone out with it on as yet. Since I have this lens in my bag, of course, I'll say get it. But for you to be sure, rent it for a week and play with it to see if you'll like it. My 2c, FWIW.
 
miloblithe

miloblithe

macrumors 68020
Nov 14, 2003
2,072
28
Washington, DC
What do you think you need more, the 201-300mm range or the one stop advantage that the 70-200 f/4 IS provides. Given the price difference and the constant aperture, the f/4 is pretty attractive.
 
K

kevinfulton.ca

macrumors 6502
Aug 29, 2011
284
1
My advice would be to get the 70-200 F/4 IS. Price is pretty close and optical and build quality is far better. Also, you'll get more for it on the market when you eventually to upgrade to the 2.8 IS. Good rule of thumb for Canon lenses: if an L lens is only $200-$300 more then the lens that you're looking at, save your money and get the L every time. They hold their value and worth every penny. :D

----------

Whoops! I guess I should have done a closer read. 70-300 is that new L. lol! Sorry guys!:p I would still go for the 70-200 F/4 IS though since it will probably sell faster and I haven't seen any complaints about focal range. It's been a very highly recommended lens from review sites and since your future buyers look to those sites for advice they will more likely have that one on their radar.
 
O

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,727
90
Sendai, Japan
I'd get either Canon's 70-200 mm f/2.8 (non-IS) (perhaps try to get your hands on a used Mark I) or a third-party f/2.8 zoom (e. g. by Tokina or Sigma, they're also very good). There is simply no replacement for a large aperture: for indoor shots, you want to avoid motion blur. An image stabilizer doesn't help you one bit with that, so f/2.8 - IS > f/4 + IS if you are doing a lot of indoor shots. Obviously f/2.8 + IS > f/2.8 - IS, but since we're not living in a perfect world where you can afford a $2.5k lens, you need to settle for the next-best thing.
 
M

mrcam216

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 22, 2011
24
0
fcortese said:
I have this lens (if it is the IS USM one) and it works nicely. It has two types of IS-one which you can use for panning which stabalizes as you move the camera horizontally. you have to get used to the zooming since the zoom ring is towards the front end of the lens and the focus ring closer to the camera. Just the opposite of what your used to. There is a very good review at http://www.canonrumors.com. This is what tipped me towards getting this lens which I did just post-Japan earthquake and during a Canon lens rebate.:D Got it at a decent rpice as compared to what it is listed for now. I did get the Kenko x1.4 extender as well although I must confess I have not gone out with it on as yet. Since I have this lens in my bag, of course, I'll say get it. But for you to be sure, rent it for a week and play with it to see if you'll like it. My 2c, FWIW.
Click to expand...



I can't wait to hear how you like it. I came across this lens by accident and i've fell in love with it. (although ive never touched it). Is the reversed zooming that crazy? ive heard a lot of people talking about that. And does it get in the way when you hold the lens / camera?

----------
kevinfulton.ca said:
My advice would be to get the 70-200 F/4 IS. Price is pretty close and optical and build quality is far better. Also, you'll get more for it on the market when you eventually to upgrade to the 2.8 IS. Good rule of thumb for Canon lenses: if an L lens is only $200-$300 more then the lens that you're looking at, save your money and get the L every time. They hold their value and worth every penny. :D

----------

Whoops! I guess I should have done a closer read. 70-300 is that new L. lol! Sorry guys!:p I would still go for the 70-200 F/4 IS though since it will probably sell faster and I haven't seen any complaints about focal range. It's been a very highly recommended lens from review sites and since your future buyers look to those sites for advice they will more likely have that one on their radar.
Click to expand...


lol. i knew someone would make that mistake. And good point about the resell. But that statement kinda got me thinking. how often do people really sell their lenses. It seem the way there made, these L lenses are such good quality, what would be the point in upgrading. i know the 70-200 2.8 mark ii is suppose to have a better is system, but other then that, the mark one is still probably just as good. Seems like really if someone invest in really good glass, the only thing that should be replaced is the body when a new one comes out. (off the subject, all this camera lens talk is making me wanna get out and shoot something today!)
 
VirtualRain

VirtualRain

macrumors 603
Aug 1, 2008
6,304
118
Vancouver, BC
I have the new 70-300 L and it's a killer telephoto lens for outdoor photography... compact, versatile zoom range, great IS, and "fast enough" for daytime shooting. However, for low light indoor shooting of moving subjects, I think you really have no choice but to go for the faster 70-200 zooms.

As for the reversal of the zoom ring and focus ring on the 70-300 L... if you use EFS lenses, this is the way most of them are configured, so it's only different if you are comparing it to EF lenses.
 
fcortese

fcortese

macrumors demi-god
Apr 3, 2010
2,219
5,155
Big Sky country
mrcam216 said:
I can't wait to hear how you like it. I came across this lens by accident and i've fell in love with it. (although ive never touched it). Is the reversed zooming that crazy? ive heard a lot of people talking about that. And does it get in the way when you hold the lens / camera?

----------




lol. i knew someone would make that mistake. And good point about the resell. But that statement kinda got me thinking. how often do people really sell their lenses. It seem the way there made, these L lenses are such good quality, what would be the point in upgrading. i know the 70-200 2.8 mark ii is suppose to have a better is system, but other then that, the mark one is still probably just as good. Seems like really if someone invest in really good glass, the only thing that should be replaced is the body when a new one comes out. (off the subject, all this camera lens talk is making me wanna get out and shoot something today!)
Click to expand...

VirtualRain said:
I have the new 70-300 L and it's a killer telephoto lens for outdoor photography... compact, versatile zoom range, great IS, and "fast enough" for daytime shooting. However, for low light indoor shooting of moving subjects, I think you really have no choice but to go for the faster 70-200 zooms.

As for the reversal of the zoom ring and focus ring on the 70-300 L... if you use EFS lenses, this is the way most of them are configured, so it's only different if you are comparing it to EF lenses.
Click to expand...
To answer your question, the zooming thing you get use to even when switching lenses. I was at a recent photo workshop and we'd be switching from a wide angle to a walk around lens to a telephoto and it didn't bother me with this lens when I switched from a different lens As a matter of fact, on several occasions I was able to reach more with this one that those using the 70-200. The zoom does not get in the way at all and you can adjust to it easily once you start using it. I agree with VR, this is a great outdoors lens, but would be a problem if you want to use it for indoor photos or indoor sports action. Since that is not part of what I use a camera for, it didn't bother me. Also this makes for a nice portrait lens for shooting outdoors. You still can get a decent bokeh effect, although no as good as a 70-200 f/2.8, but still decent. If you were indoors and in a studio, you'd definitely need additional lighting set up. The size is great for traveling which was another BIG factor in my deciding to buy this lens It fits in my Domke bag nicely on end and does not have to be laid out lengthwise, which VR as already pointed out.
 
M

mrcam216

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 22, 2011
24
0
fcortese said:
To answer your question, the zooming thing you get use to even when switching lenses. I was at a recent photo workshop and we'd be switching from a wide angle to a walk around lens to a telephoto and it didn't bother me with this lens when I switched from a different lens As a matter of fact, on several occasions I was able to reach more with this one that those using the 70-200. The zoom does not get in the way at all and you can adjust to it easily once you start using it. I agree with VR, this is a great outdoors lens, but would be a problem if you want to use it for indoor photos or indoor sports action. Since that is not part of what I use a camera for, it didn't bother me. Also this makes for a nice portrait lens for shooting outdoors. You still can get a decent bokeh effect, although no as good as a 70-200 f/2.8, but still decent. If you were indoors and in a studio, you'd definitely need additional lighting set up. The size is great for traveling which was another BIG factor in my deciding to buy this lens It fits in my Domke bag nicely on end and does not have to be laid out lengthwise, which VR as already pointed out.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. Question, do you think it would be fine using indoors with a 580ex mounted on the camera in a low light situation? Or do you think the 2.8 would be a much better bet.
 
K

kevinfulton.ca

macrumors 6502
Aug 29, 2011
284
1
I would say 2.8 since it will allow you to ditch the flash if need be. But, even with that flash it may not do you any good if your subject is out of range or if you're stuck behind glass at a hockey game or indoor soccer game. You'll just have less holding you back from taking good shots if you have the 2.8.
 
fcortese

fcortese

macrumors demi-god
Apr 3, 2010
2,219
5,155
Big Sky country
If you're going to be shooting indoors then the 70-200 f/2.8 would be the better choice as kevin as already noted and as VR and I have touched upon. I have not really tried my 70-300 indoors at all so I have no experience. The speedlight would prabably only help on still objects or persons. Any action and I am not sure it would be useful, but I must admit I am not at a strobist level yet or even near to being one!
 
S

stevendphoto

macrumors member
Jul 9, 2011
66
0
Luckily I bought my 70-200 f2.8 II shortly after they were released and got it for $1999, I did see thy have bolted up to $2500. If that is too much, I would also say to look for a good Ver 1. I had an awesome Version one and my Ver II is not that much better (certainly not $1100 better).

I also have a 5D mkII and for indoor low light, you can boost your ISO, shoot apeture priority (on 2.8) and get some unbelieveble shots!

I have 7 or so lenses and only one is not f2.8 (or lower), my Canon 100-400, but I only use that outdoors...
 
stockscalper

stockscalper

macrumors 6502a
Aug 1, 2003
917
235
Area 51
The 70-300 is a little soft at the end, but most long teles are. The 70-200 f4 is the best bargain out there. It is actually sharper than the 2.8 version - not my opinion, but the opinion of magazines and photo sites that has tested it. With a 7D you'll be getting a multiplication factor when you use the lens. Plus it has IS, which helps offset low light limitations. Personally, I've never had a problem using an f4 lens indoors or in low light. But everybody has to use what works best for them. Try renting the different lenses and try them out some weekend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom