[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1292757205' post='5099']
Hey Klaus, do you have any idea how this lens compares to a 70-200 f/4 L IS with a 1.4x extender?
[/quote]
I have (an idea)... looking at the figures from both lens tests. The 70-300mm will be a tad better, due to the loss of resolution from the cropping with the 70-200mm. Especially with the new 1.4x extender III the 70-200mm f4 L IS USM will do very well, though.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1292758119' post='5101']
I have (an idea)... looking at the figures from both lens tests. The 70-300mm will be a tad better, due to the loss of resolution from the cropping with the 70-200mm. Especially with the new 1.4x extender III the 70-200mm f4 L IS USM will do very well, though.
[/quote]
Jo, that sums it up.
This lens is giving me a headache...
Overall, the results look great, just like one would expect from an L telezoom.
I have to say that I'm rather surprised by the Bokeh test, though. Judging from samples on the web, it looks like this lens has a tendency towards nervous bokeh.
The only thing that really, really bugs me is the price, since it's even more expensive than the 70-200 f/4 IS + EF 1.4x Extender II.
On the other hand, handling the TC can be quite a headache too if you need the full range. I've tried that setup and didn't like it, although the image quality was superb, even at 280mm wide open.
So I'm wondering how well the much cheaper Tamron 70-300 VC holds up as an interim solution (especially @APS-C).
Ooh, just a quick question about the lens. From what little I can find on Canon's web sites the 70-300L isn't listed as compatible with Extenders. Is that just a "not recommended" or is it physically not possible? That is, is there nowhere for the extender protrusion would go into?
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
12-19-2010, 02:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-19-2010, 02:32 PM by Klaus.)
[quote name='sth' timestamp='1292766934' post='5104']
I have to say that I'm rather surprised by the Bokeh test, though. Judging from samples on the web, it looks like this lens has a tendency towards nervous bokeh.
[/quote]
Actually I just came back from taking some field images. The lens produces a couple of nervous images in difficult scenes where other lenses would have had problems as well. The main problem is the slow aperture so the critical focus transition zone is simply much broader.
I've have changed the rating from "very good" to "good" in the review though.
Disappointing. Given the price tag and modest apertures I was expecting optical performance in the same league as 70-200/2.8 IS mk2 and 70-200/4 IS. Guess not. In all it doesn't seem like a huge improvement over the old non-L model.
[quote name='backcountryskier' timestamp='1292799136' post='5119']
Disappointing. Given the price tag and modest apertures I was expecting optical performance in the same league as 70-200/2.8 IS mk2 and 70-200/4 IS. Guess not. In all it doesn't seem like a huge improvement over the old non-L model.
[/quote]
No surprise. 2x UD elements. Compare that the the 70-200Ls. The pricing is the oddest part. Generally I like the lens though.
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='backcountryskier' timestamp='1292799136' post='5119']
Disappointing. Given the price tag and modest apertures I was expecting optical performance in the same league as 70-200/2.8 IS mk2 and 70-200/4 IS. Guess not.[/quote]
There are far more expensive lenses that perform far less than 70-200 2.8 IS II or a 70-200 f4 IS...
[quote name='backcountryskier' timestamp='1292799136' post='5119']
In all it doesn't seem like a huge improvement over the old non-L model.
[/quote]
I think that's where it all is... in the 4.3x zoom league.
GTW
I had the 70-300 4.0/5.6L IS for a few days but wasn't impressed so I send it back.
Looking at the price (€1540,-- incl. tripod ring) I expected more from this lens. It's not a replacement for my 100-400 4.5/5.6L IS or 70-200 4.0L IS
The good things:
- very fast AF
- 4 stop IS is real
- compact
- scratch proof hood
- build like a tank
The bad things:
- to expensive (relative)
- optically less than my 70-200L IS
- optically about the same, maybe a little better but not much than my 100-400 4.5/5.6L IS
- no tripod ring standard, tripod ring feels gritty when rotating the lens, in no way comparable with the rings like the one on the 100-400 or 180-3.5L macro
- bad ergonomics due to position of the zoom and focus rings.
ps1: Lens was tested on a 5DmkII and 7D
ps2: Test results are deleted to safe diskspace
