I'm considering trading in my "old" Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 for the new 70-300mm f/4-5.6. Any and all thoughts welcomed.
I'm considering trading in my "old" Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 for the new 70-300mm f/4-5.6. Any and all thoughts welcomed.
I would say no.......70-300 is a slow lens in comparison. You could put a 1.4 TC on the 70-200 and have 280 mm at f/4.0 as compared to 70-300 being at f/5.6. I am assuming the 70-200 is not an IS lens but if shooting BIF you don't really need IS.
Bill
My 70-200 2.8 is an IS lens, and it weighs a ton. I use it for BIF and lots of other things, and it is sharp, sharp, sharp. I've never used it with a TC, though I have both the 1.4 and 2. Good point about the speed - I hadn't thought of that.
Gail,
Look a little further down the page; Arthur Morris has two threads about the 70-200 f2.8L IS II with 2X II teleconverter. His results with that combination are extremely impressive, and you might want to look at those, if you haven't already.
Regards,
Bill
Thanks, Bill. I'm looking at them right now.
If you own the 1.4x and the 2.0x TCs, then play around with them some on your 70-200mm f/2.8. I think that you'll be pleased with the results.
If you need a lighter load, then consider the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS and use it with and without the 1.4x TC. The only real disadvantage over the f/2.8 is that you can't use it with the 2.0x TC and AF for BIF, but otherwise it's got similar IQ and it's considerably lighter. It's what I use for backup to my 500mm f/4L IS.
A monopod might help you deal with the weight of your f/2.8. I really think that the 70-300mm would be a step backwards for you.
Gail -
I am one of the "early adopters of the new 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS lens and I have to say that it is an extraordinarily sharp lens. Yes, it's a bit slow it terms of light gathering abilities, but it focuses very fast, balances nicely and IMHO is truly worthy of the "L" designation. And I think it does just fine for BIF....
Here's a question: does the new 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS lens take even the 1.4X TC? I am thinking that the answer is a resounding "no."
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.
Also, the the blog posts and Bulletins from the past three months of many examples of what the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the 2X II TC can do.
Here is one as yet unpublished. This one handheld on the Barnegat Jetty where you can get close if you know what you are doing :) (I am still learning!) Uncropped at 400mm.
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.
Gail, I will assume that you can figure out where my thoughts are headed :)
ps: What body?
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.
After studying examples in your blogs, posts, bulletins, etc., I spent last weekend at Bosque del Apache trying out the 70-200 f/2.8 IS on both my 5DM2 and old 40D bodies. I tried the 1.4 and 2.0 on the lens with both bodies, and have decided to keep the 70-200 - it's just so quick. For some reason (duh!) I had never tried this lens with the teleconverters, and I was very pleased with the results, especially on the 5DM2, less so with the 40D, all handheld since my 500mm was on the tripod with the 7D body. I've used the lens mostly for landscapes and architecture, but want to start concentrating more on birds. And I need lots of practice....
Do you think the new gen III TCs would be a good purchase, and are you using them yet? I read your review a few weeks back, but haven't noticed in your posts that you are using them.
Thanks for your advice, and also to William, Bill, David and Chris.
Cheers....Gail.
Have not even been able to order the Series III TCs from Canon...
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.
Thansk Chris. That's what I thought. What does one of those cost new?
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.
Artie, Just ran across this; looks like B&H has the 70-300 f4-5.6L IS at $1599 new, so about the same as the 100-400 f4-5.6L IS. I know which I'd buy....:)
Thanks for the info.
Which one and why?
Between those two it might not be such a clear choice depending on what you photograph and your style.
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.
Artie,
On the side of the 70-300, we have: lighter weight (2.3 vs. 3 lbs.), somewhat smaller overall (primarily length), twist zoom vs. push pull, and closer focus (3.9' vs 5.9').
On the side of the 100-400, we have: 100mm more reach on the long end with only 30mm more on the short end, only about 10 ounces more weight, and the ability to use a teleconverter in a pinch (maintaining center point AF with a 1.4X TC, since I shoot with a 1D MKIV).
Now, for my purposes, the closer focus is not of much help; the vast majority of what I shoot with a "walking around lens" in this range will be over 6' away. If I'm just on a walk, and don't know what I might find, the 100mm extra reach helps for a BIF opportunity, a large bird at reasonable range, or a small songbird up close, and I have enough zoom range to cover a close encounter with mammals from squirrel-size to deer. Either lens will work for the way I like to shoot (low, slow, quiet, and hand held whenever possible), but that little bit of extra reach over the 70-300, is going to get me a few more opportunities at smaller, more distant, or skittish subjects. It's also just right for shooting from a vehicle. So, for me, I'd choose the 100-400 over the 70-300.
Now, if Canon would only make us a i00-400 or 200-400 f4 twist-zoom lens, I'd really be happy. Meanwhile, I've ordered a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II; I found your results with that and the TC impressive enough to want to try the combination, and see what I can do with it.
Best regards,
Bill
Bill,
I see this concept too often: focal length implying telephoto reach. If you want this concept, buy a 30x P&S zoom that reaches to 800+mm equivalent. (Not trying to be offensive here, just illustrate a point with an extreme.) But what should concern everyone is image quality. I have yet to see a quality zoom that can come close to matching the image quality of a quality fixed focal length lens (I hope Artie is right with the 70-200 f/2.8 II). I first bought a Sigma 170-500, then a Canon 100-400 (the sigma was sharper!) then a 500 f/4 (outstanding image quality). I replaced the 100-400 with a 300 f/4 (also outstanding image quality) (I still have the 100-400 and will sell it if someone wants it, but I recommend instead the 300 f/4 L IS or 400 f/5.6 instead).
Regarding the 70-300 f/5.6, the maximum aperture 53.6 mm compared to a 75 mm aperture for the 300 f/4. That means that diffraction on the 300 f/5.6 will reduce contrast in the finest details compared to the 300 f/4, even if the lens were perfect (and a zoom is not).
The bottom line is that in my experience, a quality fixed focal length lens will often produce as much or more detail on a subject as a much longer zoom lens. For example, my 300 f/4 produces more detail on a subject at 300 mm than my 100-400 at 400 mm. And no contest when I put a 1.4x TC on the 300.
Roger
Last edited by Roger Clark; 01-06-2011 at 10:59 PM.
Roger,
Would you be terribly surprised that I agree with you? :) Even if the "extreme" you reference magically worked (we know it doesn't), years ago, an experienced pro I knew advised me to "never shoot through more air than you have to." I found that to be excellent advice.
I had remarked that given a choice between the two zooms being discussed at the time, I knew which I'd choose; Artie asked which, and why. If I HAD to choose between the two, that's the one I'd pick; but at the moment, there's not a single zoom in my bag. When I started out back in 1983, I tried a couple of zooms (at the moment, I can't even remember which), was not especially thrilled with the results, eventually bought a Canon 500 f4.5L (which came with a 1.4X TC at the time), and never looked back.
When I started back shooting after a long hiatus (long story), I borrowed several setups from friends, and tried them to see what I should use. I found myself getting the best results with fixed focal lengths and that's the direction I went. I've looked at your calculations with considerable interest, and while some of the math makes my head hurt, I think I understand most of what that tells us. Your work confirms in theory what a lot of us have observed in practice.
I've seen some very nice images produced with the better zooms, but I haven't had the same results, not consistently; perhaps I haven't worked with them enough. Artie's results with the new 70-200 look promising, if I can get results approximating his; we shall see (sometimes, I think Artie can produce incredible images with just about anything).
As far as telephoto reach, what I've found is that for me, and the distances I try to shoot at, a 400 DO or a 500 f4 gives me a large enough image of most subjects I shoot to avoid having to crop too severely (and compromise IQ that way). It's not a matter of focal length = "reach"; it's more like focal length + larger physical aperture = more sufficiently lit pixels on the subject (on the same sensor), as you have quite correctly pointed out. Of course, I'd like to have the flexibility in composition a zoom offers, but we can, after all, use the "foot zoom" and step (or often in my case, crawl) back a bit if need be.
Hey Roger, Thanks a stack for your comment here. I am actually considering doing my first test and I need your help. I would like to do a formal test of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS alone, with the 1.4X II TC, and with the 2X II TC and the Mark IV (and possibly of the 400 DO as well).
What would you suggest? I will Lens Align each combo before testing. Once that is done will I be testing for sharpness or resolution or both? Do I need to do a comparative test or is there some fairly objective way to determine the results?
As far as the question of sharpness with zooms vs. straight lenses I have several related comments:
I have commented often on the fact that I do not have a very good eye for fine detail. That said my images have been selling well for more than 25 years :) I have never had any say, "We would publish that if it were sharper."
Surely my concern for making sharp images is not obsessive. I have made large prints of many of my favorite images (both film and digital) over the years, and all of them have looked great (to me and to others). Perhaps if you viewed them critically you would not find them up to your standards, especially because more than a few of them were made with (Canon) zoom lenses including the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, the 70-200 f/4L IS, the 24-105mm, and the much-maligned 100-400mm IS L :)
By my standards (which I do not view as shabby), most everything that I have posted here and everything that I have submitted for publication is critically and professionally sharp.
So my question would be: if all zoom lenses are not as sharp as all quality prime lenses am I missing something?
I do run paint a Quick Mask on all but the whitest parts of the faces and sometimes on all but the white feathers of my avian subjects and then apply a 15/65/0 Contrast Mask to the optimized TIFF files and I do sharpen my JPEGs generically. Folks have always marveled at the sharpness and the quality of my posted JPEGs.
The versatility of the zoom lenses has enabled me to create thousands of properly framed images that I could not have created with a prime lens of a given focal length. Each zoom can do the job of many, many prime lenses and often do it better (albeit with some loss of critical detail).
I have sold hundreds if not thousands of images made with zoom lenses including and especially the 100-400. And over the years I have advised folks to purchase and use many zoom lenses.
Again I ask (with respect) am I missing something?
I will close with this. The only sharpness test that concerns me is the pen sharpness test. If the person who buys the rights to the image or purchases a print signs the check or the credit card slip, then the image is sharp enough. (Do note again that I do not offer stuff for publication or purchase that I do not consider professionally and critically sharp).
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.
Hey Bill, Thanks for your response. And yes, a big factor involved is how close folks can routinely get to their subjects. If you lived on the Galapagos, the 70-300 might be the prefect lens for you :)
You wrote, "Now, if Canon would only make us a i00-400 or 200-400 f4 twist-zoom lens, I'd really be happy. Meanwhile, I've ordered a 70-200 f2.8 L IS II; I found your results with that and the TC impressive enough to want to try the combination, and see what I can do with it."
Hey, you just (effectively) purchased the Canon 70-400 f/5.6 L IS twist zoom lens! Congrats. And with the high ISO capabilities of the MIV and the new 4-stop IS with both the 70-200 2.8 II and the 800 f/5.6L there is really not a huge practical difference between f/4 and f/5.6 maximum apertures. (Other than one stop :))
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.
To simplify my concerns: might one say "Yes, while prime lenses will always provide more fine detail than zoom lenses today's modern zoom lenses are capable of producing critically sharp images of high enough image quality to sell and to print at large sizes"?
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.
Artie,
There are many ways to do such tests. Simplest would be a bar chart or dollar bill taped to a well-lit wall (or a bunch of dollars or bar charts to fill the field of view). Then there are two ways to approach the problem. Make all images from the same distance. Second, change the distance relative to the focal length. For example, choose a distance, like one foot for each 10 mm focal length (e.g. 20 feet for 200 mm focal length), then when you add a TC, move back 1,4x (e.g. 20 feet * 1.4 = 28 feet). Measure from the middle of the lens.
This way you will be able to see the relative degradation with adding TCs (mostly due to diffraction on the better lenses). Here is an example of this method:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...ens-sharpness/
Another difficult test is the Moon. Florida skies tend to be very stable, and by this Saturday or Sunday, the Moon will be high in the evening sky. The Moon has very high contrast edges that show aberrations well. Some of the best lunar and planetary images made today are being done from Florida and other low elevation sites (e.g. the Philippines).
The most stringent lens test is a star test. Point at the celestial pole (e.g, Polaris area in the northern hemisphere) and make a 30 second exposure at ISO 400 or so then examine the stars at full resolution. Even the supertelephotos show increasing star distortion as one moves to the edges of the frame.
A good reference lens to include in your test is the 300 f/2.8. You'll likely find that images from it are significantly sharper than from other lenses. This will be especially apparent with the 70-200 + 1.4x TC compared to the 300 f/2.8 (no TC). With the relative distance test, the differences will show pretty well.
Artie,
I agree. I too have sold many images made from zoom lenses. Image content trumps image sharpness. My first win in Natures Best was a 3-megapixel crop from a 6 megapixel camera (and they printed it full page and it has sold in galleries). I have thousands of published images and, while many are with zoom lenses, I would say the majority are fixed focal length.
But often people without supertelephoto lenses are struggling to get the detail on a distant subject, and they first start out with consumer zoom lenses. My experience has been when advising photographers if they don't have a quality long fixed focal length telpehoto and want the telephoto reach, a zoom gives less actual reach than a fixed focal length lens. I don't recommend any zoom as the main prime telephoto lens (I use prime as the original definition, not just a fixed focal length lens) one has for wildlife photography. Once one has such a telephoto, then supplementing it with a zoom is fine. When one has both, you can choose the best tool for a given situation. (And you get more exercise carrying all that gear.:)) Exception might be the Nikon 200-400 f/4, and the new Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II. (I wish Canon had a 200-400 f/4.
My 70-200 f/4 is a workhorse lens for me, and I have always considered it very sharp. I recently did a test for another person on the Moon, and was surprised at the 70-200 at 200 + 1.4x TC at how much the image degraded. This was not as obvious on an average landscape scene as it was on the Moon. Zooms in general do not take TCs as well as fixed focal length lenses in my experience.
Roger
Thanks a ton Roger. It is good to know that you regularly use zoom lenses even though the primes are always sharper :)
You wrote, "I don't recommend any zoom as the main prime telephoto lens." Now I understand why I recommend the old 400 f/5.6 over the 100-400 when it will be somebody's main telephoto lens....
Last and most important. Though I am my usual multi-tasking self I took a pretty good look at your Relative Lens Sharpness post. (Thanks a ton for the link and for your efforts there.)
I do have many questions. With your kind permission I would like to start a thread with a link to your Relative Lens Sharpness post and my questions so that others may benefit from your knowledge. I am sure that others will chime in as well, in spades. If yes, I will start it in this Forum unless you think of a better spot. Let me know :)
Again, thanks a stack.
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.
Artie,
Sorry it took so long to reply. It was a long work day with early meetings.
You certainly have my permission. I'm fine with anyone anytime posting a question about my web pages that might spur insight here on BPN. I think the gear forum is the right place for this one.
A note on the relative lens sharpness page: that was done several years ago with a 10D. If someone uses a different camera with a different pixel pitch, the results will not be exactly comparable. Pixel pitch adds another variable in the complex equation. So if I, for example, wanted to add lenses to that page, I would have to start over as I no longer have a 10D.
I could derive an equation that would normalize that factor, if desired.
As stated on the web page, everyone has permission to download and print the test chart for their own personal use. I print multiple charts and tape them to a board so the little charts fill the camera field of view. Then one can test center and edge sharpness.
Roger
Roger. I have been busy too, this time preparing the Lens Align Mark II Tutorial. Folks can find it here.
I will begin the thread in this Forum next so thanks a stack.
BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.
BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.
Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,
E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.