Help needed: Which Tele Lens?


Status
Not open for further replies.

unseen

Senior Member
Dec 14, 2004
2,622
0
36
NTU and Wdls
I was gonna get myself a 70-200 F4L, till I stumbled across the new 70-300 IS. Wondering which of the lenses should I get..

Telephoto
1) EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM
2) EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

Questions
a) are everyday images from 70-300 ok?
b) What is lacking in images produced when compared to the 70-200, NOT fixable in photoshop? (NVM colour/contrast)
c) is the difference that big?

Raving reviews I've read of the 70-300 point to the fact that the 3rd gen IS works beautifully on the 70-300. Both are relatively slow lenses, but with IS on, at say 200mm would one get more keepers indoor?

Is the 70-300 suitable for portraits? It seems that both the lenses have got 8 aperture blades, so am I right to assume bokeh is going to be similar?

Anyone with the 70-300IS can give any comments?
 

rinaldi86

New Member
Apr 13, 2004
620
0
0
Singapore
unseen said:
I was gonna get myself a 70-200 F4L, till I stumbled across the new 70-300 IS. Wondering which of the lenses should I get..

Telephoto
1) EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM
2) EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

Questions
a) are everyday images from 70-300 ok?
b) What is lacking in images produced when compared to the 70-200, NOT fixable in photoshop? (NVM colour/contrast)
c) is the difference that big?

Raving reviews I've read of the 70-300 point to the fact that the 3rd gen IS works beautifully on the 70-300. Both are relatively slow lenses, but with IS on, at say 200mm would one get more keepers indoor?

Is the 70-300 suitable for portraits? It seems that both the lenses have got 8 aperture blades, so am I right to assume bokeh is going to be similar?

Anyone with the 70-300IS can give any comments?
I don't own the 70-300 IS, but my friend do. Here's my answer to your questions. Hope it helps.

a) Yes
b) Nothing
c) Not really

At the end of the day, I picked the 70-200 F4L instead of the 70-300 IS. Here're my reasons of why I picked the 70-200 F4L instead of the 70-300 IS:

1.) 70-300 sticks out when zoomed
2.) 70-300 rotates as it focus - I will eventually use polarizing filter. So this affects me
3.) I got fetish for hood, and the hood for 70-300 cost about $70. I'm a little tight on budget and I will end up paying more if I were to get 70-300 with hood & filter. Hood comes bundled with the 70-200 F4L
4.) For some reason, sometimes I would love to do continuous focusing. 70-300 can do it as well, just that it may "jerk" a little sometimes
5.) I can have shallower DOF on the 70-200 than on a 70-300

------------

I love the 70-300 for its additional 100mm range with decent image quality, and furthermore, it does come with IS - good for less well lighted shoots.
70-300 was part of the consideration before buying my 70-200. The additional 100mm is especially crucial considering I'll be taking some light birdings (organic birds & mechanical birds)
But the 70-200 just won my bet :)
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
38
Melbourne, Australia
To add on, longer lenses will generally work as a portrait lens, but those with a wider maximum aperture is much preferred. All things equal, you'd be able to get more convincing bokeh on a 70-200mm @ 200mm f/4 than the 70-300mm @ 200mm f/5 or f/5.6.

However it's once been remarked by a reviewer that the 70-200mm might even be a bit too sharp for portraits. In addition to good bokeh, some people want their portraits flattering with soft features, rather than to see their pimples in pixels. Of course, if you really wanted a softening effect on a lens, it'd be easy. Stretch some pantyhose over the front and secure it with a rubber band. Vary the tension on the panty hose to vary the degree of softening on the image.
 

bonifas

New Member
Dec 30, 2005
193
0
0
Singapore
fWord said:
Stretch some pantyhose over the front and secure it with a rubber band. Vary the tension on the panty hose to vary the degree of softening on the image.
you must be joking on this one right? or have you done it before? :D
newbie in confussion.... :D
 

rinaldi86

New Member
Apr 13, 2004
620
0
0
Singapore
fWord said:
Stretch some pantyhose over the front and secure it with a rubber band. Vary the tension on the panty hose to vary the degree of softening on the image.
You aren't serious on this rite? Gonna look weird having that thing infront of lens.

To create soft effect you can:

1. Use Soft Filter
2. Photoshop
3. Buy EF 135 F2.8 Soft Focus
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
38
Melbourne, Australia
:bsmilie: No, it's true. One of the books I read, titled 'Digital Photography Hacks' (or something around those lines) actually recommends it. This is said to be a cheap yet effective and easy way to get a soft effect.
 

billpepsi

New Member
Jan 2, 2005
1,269
0
0
The 3rd Rock
rinaldi86 said:
You aren't serious on this rite? Gonna look weird having that thing infront of lens.

To create soft effect you can:

1. Use Soft Filter
2. Photoshop
3. Buy EF 135 F2.8 Soft Focus
Some magazine even called "pantyhose filter" as the Hollywood effect.
 

rinaldi86

New Member
Apr 13, 2004
620
0
0
Singapore
Okay, that's something new for me. Couldn't imagine having that on my lens..
 

unseen

Senior Member
Dec 14, 2004
2,622
0
36
NTU and Wdls
Thanks for the recommendations.. LOL will go buy a pair of pantyhose to try try.

My lens path now is either to go
1) 70-200F4L,
2) 70-300 is, then add on a 70-200 F2.8L eventually (heh haven't win toto, cannot buy everything).

Currently I feel that it'll be nice to have a long and flexible walkabout lens, that's why not considering the F2.8 yet.. Was wondering if #2 is a waste of money, with the duplicacy in focal length. I definitely don't relish having a 1.5kg lens as a walkabout lens. LOL I'm a weakling.
Would you think #2 is a silly idea?

I am somewhat embarassed to say, F4L is lingering on my mind because (besides the pure simple fact that it's white :D) it's a kick to get sharp images out of the camera. and that the lens is light.

Given that I do a standard automated workflow for all my images, I don't see why I can't just bump up sharpening a notch to compensate for the non L sharpness of the 70-300 is.

BUT: Woud I get images from the 70-300 IS that are too soft to sharpen in PS?
 

JediForce4ever

Senior Member
Aug 16, 2005
3,157
0
0
Singapore, CanonGraphers.org
unseen said:
Thanks for the recommendations.. LOL will go buy a pair of pantyhose to try try.

My lens path now is either to go
1) 70-200F4L,
2) 70-300 is, then add on a 70-200 F2.8L eventually (heh haven't win toto, cannot buy everything).

Currently I feel that it'll be nice to have a long and flexible walkabout lens, that's why not considering the F2.8 yet.. Was wondering if #2 is a waste of money, with the duplicacy in focal length. I definitely don't relish having a 1.5kg lens as a walkabout lens. LOL I'm a weakling.
Would you think #2 is a silly idea?

I am somewhat embarassed to say, F4L is lingering on my mind because (besides the pure simple fact that it's white :D) it's a kick to get sharp images out of the camera. and that the lens is light.

Given that I do a standard automated workflow for all my images, I don't see why I can't just bump up sharpening a notch to compensate for the non L sharpness of the 70-300 is.

BUT: Woud I get images from the 70-300 IS that are too soft to sharpen in PS?
IMO, choice no, 2 would not be very silly..but If you are on a tight budget:
70-200mmf4L+17-40mmf4L.:thumbsup:
 

ptwong

Senior Member
Nov 10, 2003
589
0
16
45
Yishun
Get a F4L. It would be good but don't you find 70-200 a bit long for walkaround lense? or else bite the bullet and get a F2.8 but add a teleconverter for the extra range. I know it's heavier but i think you would like the pics more.
 

Canew

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2005
2,228
0
36
Tampines
hjgoh.spaces.live.com
ptwong said:
Get a F4L. It would be good but don't you find 70-200 a bit long for walkaround lense? or else bite the bullet and get a F2.8 but add a teleconverter for the extra range. I know it's heavier but i think you would like the pics more.
Sometimes, it is not only a matter of money. The f/2.8 is heavier and bulkier, hence might not be too pleasing to be a walkabout lens. :)
 

JediForce4ever

Senior Member
Aug 16, 2005
3,157
0
0
Singapore, CanonGraphers.org
Canew said:
Sometimes, it is not only a matter of money. The f/2.8 is heavier and bulkier, hence might not be too pleasing to be a walkabout lens. :)
Train arm power to prevent muggers from stealing ur lens!!:bsmilie:
 

user111

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2004
4,702
0
36
unseen said:
I am somewhat embarassed to say, F4L is lingering on my mind because (besides the pure simple fact that it's white :D) it's a kick to get sharp images out of the camera. and that the lens is light.

Given that I do a standard automated workflow for all my images, I don't see why I can't just bump up sharpening a notch to compensate for the non L sharpness of the 70-300 is.

BUT: Woud I get images from the 70-300 IS that are too soft to sharpen in PS?
just buy the 70-200/2.8L and the 75-300 IS
 

speedblade

New Member
Sep 28, 2003
855
0
0
Bukit Panjang
the 2.8 (IS or not) is no joke in terms of weight. You seriously need to haul one around to appreciate it.

like a lot of reviews, at the end of the day, pictures from it will make you smile.....
 

Stoned

Senior Member
May 7, 2004
4,378
0
0
33
Changi
www.photo.net
I avoided this thread so far because I don't want it to look like I'm trying to push the 70-200/4 I'm selling.

What I would say, objectively, is that you should get the 70-200 if you don't need the 200-300mm range. You need to know what you're going to shoot. If you need the longer range and the extra f-stop isn't important to you
 

user111

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2004
4,702
0
36
speedblade said:
the 2.8 (IS or not) is no joke in terms of weight. You seriously need to haul one around to appreciate it.
please. this lens is light. you dunno what is heavy yet. hehe!
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
38
Melbourne, Australia
user111 said:
please. this lens is light. you dunno what is heavy yet. hehe!
In the past when I only had the kit lens and the 70-200mm f/4L, I thought THAT was heavy. Now I think otherwise. At just over 700 grams, the weight is really modest. Once we start hitting the f/2.8L the weight increment is immense, and the IS version is just about double the weight, quite a hefty piece of glass. Of course, it's no 400mm f/2.8, or a 1200mm, but I wouldn't call it truly walkabout.
 

rinaldi86

New Member
Apr 13, 2004
620
0
0
Singapore
unseen said:
Thanks for the recommendations.. LOL will go buy a pair of pantyhose to try try.

My lens path now is either to go
1) 70-200F4L,
2) 70-300 is, then add on a 70-200 F2.8L eventually (heh haven't win toto, cannot buy everything).

Currently I feel that it'll be nice to have a long and flexible walkabout lens, that's why not considering the F2.8 yet.. Was wondering if #2 is a waste of money, with the duplicacy in focal length. I definitely don't relish having a 1.5kg lens as a walkabout lens. LOL I'm a weakling.
Would you think #2 is a silly idea?

I am somewhat embarassed to say, F4L is lingering on my mind because (besides the pure simple fact that it's white :D) it's a kick to get sharp images out of the camera. and that the lens is light.

Given that I do a standard automated workflow for all my images, I don't see why I can't just bump up sharpening a notch to compensate for the non L sharpness of the 70-300 is.

BUT: Woud I get images from the 70-300 IS that are too soft to sharpen in PS?
If you are going to get the 70-200 2.8L eventually, I would recommend you not to buy any expensive tele for the time being.

IMO, it would be better for you to just save up.

70-300 $1300
70-200 2.8L about $1700 2nd hand

Total: $3000

$3000 can get you 70-200 2.8L IS liao.

So at most for now you can get the Tamron 28-200 or 28-75
 

Status
Not open for further replies.