Canon 70-200 L F/4 - Last thread I promise

Prophet

Prophet

Prophet

Soldato
Joined
5 Oct 2004
Posts
7,395
Location
Notts
Its a big decision for me to part with £300 at the moment so I'm looking for examples of photo's taken with the Canon 70-200 L F/4 especially at 70mm and 200mm.

Mostly I'll be taking shots at either 1/4 mile events or at race tracks were generally I'm quite close.

I'd really appreciate someone posting some pics :)
 

Mr.Orb

Mr.Orb

Mr.Orb

Soldato
Joined
12 Nov 2004
Posts
2,527
Location
Bath
Last edited:

Prophet

Prophet

Prophet

Soldato
OP
Joined
5 Oct 2004
Posts
7,395
Location
Notts
Really appreciate that Mr.Orb.

The only resevation I have is the lack of the 300mm reach I've had before. However, the 100-300 at 200mm+ isnt very sharp so with the 70-200mm L. I guess a crop would be just as good if not better than the 100-300 at 300. If that make sense.

I'm not worried about IS as I've used the 100-300 for a couple of years and developed a fairly wobble free panning technique.




Some of the time I'm struggling at 100mm to get the close up action in so 70mm would be great.
 

Mr.Orb

Mr.Orb

Mr.Orb

Soldato
Joined
12 Nov 2004
Posts
2,527
Location
Bath
I went from a Tamron 70-300mm to the 70-200mm, I was also unsure about the lack of zoomyness so I bought a 1.4x extender... Which I haven't used yet...
 

2StepSteve

2StepSteve

2StepSteve

Soldato
Joined
24 Apr 2006
Posts
6,363
Location
SE England
In the same position as you rafster.. Am looking at the Canon 70-300MM IS USM or Canon 70-200 L F4. From what i've read there isn't much between them IQ wise, so it breaks down abit like this I think: If IS is needed and more reach the 70-300 IS USM.. if you aren't bothered about reach, want build quality, not fussed about IS, and the extra stop is needed its 70-200 L
http://www.thinkingms.com/pensieve/...300mmF456ISUSMAndTheCanonEF70200mmF4LUSM.aspx


Check this link out http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/manytests

Compares the above with the sigma 70-300 APO DG which I currently own, i'm very surprised how well it performs at 200mm its very close, tbh i'm disappointed that the 70-300 and 70-200 L aren't leaps and bounds ahead of the cheapy sigma, they are a touch better but christ no where near what I was expecting.. I'm having thoughts if to save my money.. but I am desprate for IS
 
Last edited:

londonbairn

londonbairn

londonbairn

Soldato
Joined
29 May 2005
Posts
5,622
Location
West London
2StepSteve said:
In the same position as you rafster.. Am looking at the Canon 70-300MM IS USM or Canon 70-200 L F4. From what i've read there isn't much between them IQ wise, so it breaks down abit like this I think: If IS is needed and more reach the 70-300 IS USM.. if you aren't bothered about reach, want build quality, not fussed about IS, and the extra stop is needed its 70-200 L
http://www.thinkingms.com/pensieve/...300mmF456ISUSMAndTheCanonEF70200mmF4LUSM.aspx


Check this link out http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/manytests

Compares the above lens and the sigma 70-300 APO DG which I currently own, tbh i'm very surprised how well it performs at 200mm.. and i'm having thoughts if to save my money..but I am desprate for IS
Click to expand...

Interesting food for thought, thanks! How is the quality of the Sigma between 200-300? As I have just started out, I would rather go for the "cheaper" lens, but it may make sense to go for the Canon. Does the lack of IS really hinder you?
 

2StepSteve

2StepSteve

2StepSteve

Soldato
Joined
24 Apr 2006
Posts
6,363
Location
SE England
rafster said:
Interesting food for thought, thanks! How is the quality of the Sigma between 200-300? As I have just started out, I would rather go for the "cheaper" lens, but it may make sense to go for the Canon. Does the lack of IS really hinder you?
Click to expand...

The quality does get terrible after 200mm on the sigma, I only push it to past 200mm when I really have to. So in that respect the upgrade to the 70-300 USM IS would be beneficial as the IQ seems to stay very good through out the range http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...00mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review?start=1

Days like today are difficult, when it gets overcast and dark, find myself always pumping up the ISO. Not having IS really does bug me, but I think it depends on the shooter, if you use a tripod.. on the same area the extra stop at 200mm on the 700-200 L will help.. not sure if it will help as much as IS tho? Bright sunny days are needed for the sigma, especially with the lack of IS and it being quite slow. The sigma is a good budget lens no doubt, i'm still amazed by them samples comparing all three lenses. I was very close to selling mine and buying the 70-300 USM IS.. now i'm not sure if to hold onto my money, or not!
 
Last edited:

SDK^

SDK^

SDK^

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
21,067
Sounds to me like you're expecting too much from the Canon 70-300. Remember IS adds around £100-£150 to the cost of the lens, it also has USM (faster focus), better build etc etc

Considering all of the improvements when you're not in a lab photographing resolution charts the Canon 70-300 should be significantly better than the Sigma.
 

londonbairn

londonbairn

londonbairn

Soldato
Joined
29 May 2005
Posts
5,622
Location
West London
Is it worth the extra £100 or so for me to get the Canon over the Sigma given that I am a beginner? Looking at the 300mm comparisons on the site 2StepSteve kindily posted, the Sigma does not look that great compared to the others...
 

2StepSteve

2StepSteve

2StepSteve

Soldato
Joined
24 Apr 2006
Posts
6,363
Location
SE England
Still im undecided.. have you made a decison rafster?

The temptation of dazzling L glass is strong, with a 1.4 TC its not far off 300mm.. but I keep thinking the 70-300IS would be more useful. Shooting birds in my garden last week was quite frustrating soon as the sun went in had to crank up the ISO to get the shutter speed up to counter act hand shake.. find myself having to do this so often with the sigma 70-300. The weather in this country doesn't do us any favours, a tripod would help but my bag is heavy enough without one!

The 70-200 L f4 does seem to have more punch tho! Some amazing shots on that photography-on-the.net thread!
 
Last edited:

turbotoes

turbotoes

turbotoes

Associate
Joined
28 Oct 2002
Posts
209
Location
france
Have you considered the canon EF-S 55-250 IS?, can be had for around 170 of your squids and is getting good reviews. google " camera + price + buster" for an excelent site. I don't think it can be considered a competitor can it?

That said, I chose (recently) to splurge for the 70-200 F4 IS, and I love it. I also have the sigma 70-300 DG APO and there is NO comparision in real life!!
 

33L

33L

33L

Associate
Joined
25 Sep 2006
Posts
1,989
Location
Windy Sheffield
turbotoes said:
That said, I chose (recently) to splurge for the 70-200 F4 IS, and I love it. I also have the sigma 70-300 DG APO and there is NO comparision in real life!!
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the budget Sigma lens is the same IQ as the L glass?
or are you saying you use the sigma as a door stop now?
 

turbotoes

turbotoes

turbotoes

Associate
Joined
28 Oct 2002
Posts
209
Location
france
Not quite a door stop, but I doubt I'll ever put it back on my 400d, the canon is a far better lens. As you'd expect for the difference in price!!
The sigy ain't bad for the money and when you get to know it, it produces good shots. But the L beats it hands down in all regards .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom