Which 70-300mm - 3x versions

<p>70-300mm / 4-5.6 IS<br />70-300mm / 4-5.6 IS L <br />70-300mm / 4-5.6 IS DO (the compact physical design)<br /><br />Can anyone comment on any compelling reasons to choose one over the others?<br />Obviously the L version is almost 3x the price of the regular. Are the pictures much better?<br />The DO version is nice & small (a great advantage when walking the city) but doesn't cost much less than the L.<br />I'm open to finding used gear.<br /><br />Mainly I'll be using it either for landscapes where I'll stop down to f11 more or less.<br />AND, more frequently, I'll be using it for city scenes with tight 'graphic' compositions ala Jay Maisel (who I understand uses the Nikon versions 70-300mm & 28-300mm VR, 4.5-5.6 & 3.5-5.6 respectively).<br />I'd be much wider open & mostly hand held (e.g. f4 or 5.6) in this scenario.<br /><br />I love great quality (5D2) and this would be my first zoom. I only have primes.<br /><br />Thanks<br />Frank</p>

<p>I would go with the basic 70-300 IS</p>

<p>You could add Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 VC to that list.</p>

<p>If you're after ultimate sharpness and don't need 300 mm, then check out Canon 70-200/4 IS</p>

<p>Why Brett ?<br>

Any reviews or links?<br>

As I said I use primes (L when possible) to achieve max quality so with 'the basic' will I be disappointed?</p>

<p>The Nikon 70-300 is one of those sweet gems at a price that makes us Canon shooters wishing we had one. It is one of best deals out there on lenses. It takes the 70-300L to equal what that Nikon can do. Just my opinion.</p>

 

<p>+1 on the Tamron. It's a great lens, and has been reviewed well. Plus, it's cheaper than the basic Canon 70-300 ($399 after $50 mail-in rebate.), and many say a better lens. I have one, and would be using it a lot, if I didn't need my 100-400 for birds...</p>

<p>The full name for the Tamron (seems they have a couple out there...) is:<br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong>Tamron SP AF70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC Ultra Silent Drive (USD) for Canon.</strong></p>

<p>Interesting point Richard. I wonder if there's a canon & nikon shoot-out on their respective 70-300's anywhere on the web. I have no doubt that if Jay Maisel uses it, it's quality is exceptional.</p>

<p>A long shot dream on idea but it may even be worth getting a low cost full frame nikon body just to use with it</p>

<p>The 70-300mm / 4-5.6 IS L – it's a superb lens that can be used wide open at all focal lengths with great results. It's surprisingly compact, too. See <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/">here…</a></p>

<p>I own the DO lens too for its compactness, but it has its flaws and since it's almost as expensive I wouldn't recommend it.</p>

<p>I recommend the 70-200 f4L IS with a 1.4 extender, with the extender (280mm) it is almost as sharp as the 70-300 L at 300 (<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3</a>) at 200 and below it is better. An amazing lens, tack sharp wide open, wish I hadn't sold mine. </p>

<p>If you will be shooting mostly past f/8 the regular 70-300mm and the DO are both very good opticaly, what you gaing with the L is an amaisingly fast and accurate focus, one stop better IS(compared to the regular), weather sealing and build quality (it's litteraly built like a tank).</p>

<p>If you want to shoot wide open the L is much, much sharper than the other two. Don't know if it's worth 3x the price over the regulat, it's for you to decide.</p>

<p>I have the DO and the L with a background in the old 75-300IS. The DO is a great lens and if you want something small for the focal length then it is the obvious choice. Cons are that the files do require more work in RAW processing to get the best at f8 or smaller. The L is something else. I have trouble now chosing the DO over the L even when I want to travel light (but I'm not ready to sell the DO either as it has different strengths). The L is superb and given the choices you mention I'd have no hesitation in chosing it especially if shooting wide open.</p>

<p>I don't know if the pictures from the L are that much better then the non L because I never used the non L but I will say the 70-300L is an top quality lens in every way. First off its compact enough to fit in a very small bag which to me is a huge plus but the image quality, sharpness, build, IS, etc. are all top quality. I guess the variable aperture is a downside but considering the size and range I can live with it and this is common among these choices. I also wish I could use a 1.4x but again its something I can live with<br>

I also use a lot of primes and the image quality of the 70-300L is right there IMO. It seems many people don't give this lens much of a chance but I would bet its those who have never tried it. </p>

<p>Yes, sometimes I will have to shoot wide open.</p>

<p>If you can swing it, I'd recommend the L version. It is extremely fast with autofocus. Almost on par with the 300/2.8 IS. Much faster than the 300/4 IS, and that's not exactly slow.</p>

<p>Oh, and the image quality and IS rocks, too. :)</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>I've never used any of them, but I can tell you'd forever doubt yourself if you didn't buy the 70-300L. So that's the one you should buy, you're only on this Earth once so what's a few hundred bucks between birth and death?</p>

<p>Let me get this straight: You are picky about quality, shoot mostly with L primes, and you're wondering if a consumer-grade zoom will meet your standards?</p>

<ul>

<li>IS: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/558-canon70300f456isff</li>

<li>L IS: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/570-canon70300f456islff</li>

<li>DO: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/540-canon70300f4556doisff</li>

</ul>

<p>First off, unless the you really <strong>need</strong> the DO's light-weight and compactness, leave it off your list. The diffractive optics have too many strange effects (see the photozone bokeh analysis).<br>

The non-L 70-300mm IS is a decent lens. I know a number of people who have them and are (more or less) happy. FWIW, I'll probably get one to use when I don't want to haul around the my longer lenses. It's pretty sharp, and it's largest problem is some softness and CA at 300mm (esp. in the corners). The focus motor is a bit slower than the USM in the L.<br>

The L is better in almost every measure at every focal-length (as you would expect). However, by f/11 most of the resolution differences have been evened out by the early effects of diffraction. The non-L CA doesn't improve much, though.<br>

I would say the major decision point is how much you plan to use focal-lengths > 200mm. That's where you will notice the most difference. If you aren't going to use the long end much, I would definitely suggest looking at the plethora of 70-200mm L models. The f/4 (IS and non-IS) are both very nice.</p>

 

<p><em>If you aren't going to use the long end much, I would definitely suggest looking at the plethora of 70-200mm L models. The f/4 (IS and non-IS) are both very nice.</em><br>

I had been on a single track towards the 300mm end but may still consider 200mm.<br>

Would you say the 200's are all 'optical quality' equals across the aperture range and the only difference is IS or not and widest aperture.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Would you say the 200's are all 'optical quality' equals across the aperture range and the only difference is IS or not and widest aperture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are <em>five</em> EF 70-200 L's: the f/2.8, f/2.8 IS, f/2.8 IS II, f/4, and f/4 IS. Until the f/2.8 L II came along, the best of the bunch optically was the f/4 L IS, and it's really just as good as the newer, faster zoom. Check out the photozone lens review pages linked to above.</p>

<p>The 70-200/4 L IS is my only EF zoom, and one of my most-used lenses. For walkabout use, the 70-200/2.8's would be far too heavy and bulky for me. I have considered getting the 70-300/4-5.6 L, but just can't justify spending so much for an extra 100mm of reach, particularly since I already have the 300/4 L non-IS.</p>

<p>Frank:<br>

After having the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 (really horrible), I upgraded to an old EF 100-300mm f/5.6 L. Great, sharp, lightweight, cheaply made lens that was really slow, and on crop, difficult to hand hold without IS. Heard great things about the EF-S 55-250mm IS and really liked image quality, but then moved to full frame. Picked up a used EF 70-200mm f/4 IS. Outstanding, but lacked reach; not great with 1.4x Kenko DGX TC. Worriedly grabbed an EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS over the non-L....did a shootout. All the others are going on the auction block. Yes, the L is THAT good. Only my EF 300mm f/4 IS is slightly sharper at 300mm.</p>

<p>Let's not carried away with the quality of the Nikon 70-300. It certainly is not worth buying a Nikon body for. It really is the same old thing, as with Canon, you pay dearly for the IS/VR.</p>

<p>The 300mm end seems long to me, but obviously the Canon 70-300 L is the best option in this range. When compared to the "basic" zoom, this particular L lens will be sharper all the way through the aperture range, be consistently more contrasty, have greater control over flare (but still not great), and have superior colour rendition. If you are used to primes you will grow to hate the "basic" zoom. Remember your 5D II is capable of showing the differences in optical lens quality.</p>

<p>My personal preference for your needs is likely still a Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L (non-IS) and 1.4x (I or II) for occasional use. You can buy these used for well under 1/2 the price of the 70-300 L. I will always take a non-IS over IS but then I don't do "no-light" photography of still objects. If you do this on a regular enough basis you may be able to justify IS. Don't over-estimate what IS can do, like so many people.</p>

<p>I highly recommend buying used so that you can maximize quality for budget. I have had great luck with eBay over the past 10 years, but I have also bought very good lenses from keh.com for very good prices. It is the first site I go to when considering equipment, and prices often beat eBay even.</p>

<p>"<em>Let's not carried away with the quality of the Nikon 70-300. It certainly is not worth buying a Nikon body for. It really is the same old thing, as with Canon, you pay dearly for the IS/VR</em>."</p>

<p>I'm not an expert at zooms (always been a prime user) but....just look at the price difference between the Canon & Nikon 70-300 both with IS/VR. <strong>The Nikon is like $1000 less!</strong><br>

And, the quality must be equal if people like Jay Maisel use Nikon. I cant get my head around why the Canon version is so much more.</p>

<p>The Nikon simply is not what people say it is. They get carried away by the prospect of VR allowing them to shoot a 300mm lens handheld at 1/15 second. How often in real life is one going to do that. From what I have seen on the internet the Canon is vastly superior to the Nikon. The Nikon is a $500 lens with VR added. The Canon is a $1000 lens with IS added. Don't forget that Nikonians don't have a wide selection of f4 and f2.8 xx-200mm lenses to choose from like "Canonites." It is either the lightweight 70-300 or the two huge xx-200/2.8 zooms that they have.</p>

<p>Exceptional photographers can take exceptional images with any camera and lens, doesn't matter if they are "pros" are not. Pros can take poor pictures too. </p>

<p>Frank:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And, the quality must be equal if people like Jay Maisel use Nikon. I cant get my head around why the Canon version is so much more.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Here's a comparison I found:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=622&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=622&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0</a><br>

Mouse over to see the Nikon.</p>

<p>I wouldn't say the quality is the same. I think the Canon has more than a slight edge.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>I played around and compared the Canon 70-300 to the Nikon, and they seemed very similar.</p>

<p>A $550 lens does compare similarly to a $590 one. :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will always take a non-IS over IS...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Funny, but I'm the opposite, particularly with longer lenses.</p>