Let me apologize in advance if this has been discussed. I turned up nothing in a search.
Does anyone have any experience with this lens (especially with a 1.4x TC)? I know it doesn't have IS, but it is so much less expensive than the 300mm IS f/4L
Printable View
Let me apologize in advance if this has been discussed. I turned up nothing in a search.
Does anyone have any experience with this lens (especially with a 1.4x TC)? I know it doesn't have IS, but it is so much less expensive than the 300mm IS f/4L
A beautiful lens and great value for money, I carry that my 100 f/2.8 Macro and 135 f/2 L with me when I go walkabout, razor sharp every one of them and fast to boot.
Thanks, Chris! Have you ever used it with a 1.4X? Frankly, I'm surprised I don't see more about this lens. It is so much less expensive than the 70-200L f/2.8L.
Yes Ian I have used it with the 1.4 on many occasions and it has almost no loss of IQ or focus speed at all.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...7&cat=2&page=1
I recommend saving a little longer for the 300/4 L IS. I have owned one for four years and it is a joy to use with its razor sharp IQ and wonderful slide out lens hood that is permanently attached. Unfortunately, I rarely use it anymore because it lacks reach, a problem that will be even more evident with the 200/2.8. I have a 70-200/2.8 (also tack sharp) and I only use it for taking photos of friend's pets and kids.........again.....no reach. Just my opinionated opinion. Good luck with whatever you choose!:)
DB
Ian, Danny makes valid points, but when you become addicted to Prime Lenses, each and every one has its addictive factor and once you find it you are a lost soul to the purity of Primes (of every length)
My most used prime is my 135 f/2 followed by my 300 f/2,8, most folk would say the opposite but I simply love the 135 f/2 .
Thanks, folks. I have my 400mm f/5.6L and I have my Sigma 100-300mm f/4. Although I like my Sigma, the quality difference between it and my Canon prime is clear to me. It is also bigger and heavier than my 400. I was considering the 70-200 f/2.8, but it is outrageously expensive. I was just floating the idea of that 200 because it is a lens one rarely hears anything about. It is relatively small, unobtrusive (it's black), and it's not outrageously priced.
Well said, Chris. We do become attached to our gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher C.M. Cooke
DB
The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS works great with the 1.4x TC.
I used to own the 400mm f/5.6L, but was able to move up to the 500mm f/4L IS a few months back. The IQ of the little 70-200mm stands up very well to the stellar 500mm f/4L IS. Unless you really need f/2.8 for something specific, I'd suggest going to the f/4.
Hi Ian,
What will you be using this lens for and do you have a budget in mind? Also what focal range are you trying to fill i.e what other lenses do you have besides the Sigma 100-300 and 400mm? If you have a 400mm and nothing less than the 100-300mm then a 200mm would be a better option in my mind than a 300mm.
70-200 F4 IS (new or used) would be my choice if your pirmary focus is wildife and you have a budget. My 70-200 F2.8 IS rarely sees 2.8 but does come in handy now and again for the odd event etc.
Good luck
Jamie
Thanks for the input folks. This isn't on the 'immediate' list. I was just interested in this piece of glass as it is so rarely mentioned.
I would echo what Danny said. get the 300 F4 IS
it is a very nice lens and produces tack sharp images
I am never disappointed with the results on the 5D II
I use my 300 F4 IS with extension tubes and it acts as an image stabilized macro lens
excellent for butterfly, flowers, bees, spiders, lizards and other small critters
I owned the 200mm F2.8 but ended up selling it. I found the 300 F4 IS more useful and versatile. At least for outdoor shots. For indoors, I use the Sigma 85mm F1.4 instead. Or Canon 135mm F2 is excellent as well.
