12-18-2010, 04:25 PM
From your results, it seems a little better than the 70-300 non-L which is as hoped. The rest of the incremental value I guess is in the build quality. Is an APS-C test in the pipeline too? Or can we just extrapolate from here there will be a similar level of improvement over the non-L?
But in general, I don't get the comparison with the 70-200 models that 70-300 lenses attract at times. At equivalent focal length/aperture it isn't far off, but of course if you're buying a 70-300 over a 70-200, it's that 200-300mm region you're getting. You'd have to pay more for a 1.4x extender to get the '200 to 280mm, and in the process you lost the wider angle end of zoom plus what is the impact on performance?
Side note: I was stalking the swans in the park today with 100-400L on one body. At times I wish I swapped the 100-400L for the 70-300 DO I also have for light travel, as I needed to zoom out that little bit more and run out of space to go back!
But in general, I don't get the comparison with the 70-200 models that 70-300 lenses attract at times. At equivalent focal length/aperture it isn't far off, but of course if you're buying a 70-300 over a 70-200, it's that 200-300mm region you're getting. You'd have to pay more for a 1.4x extender to get the '200 to 280mm, and in the process you lost the wider angle end of zoom plus what is the impact on performance?
Side note: I was stalking the swans in the park today with 100-400L on one body. At times I wish I swapped the 100-400L for the 70-300 DO I also have for light travel, as I needed to zoom out that little bit more and run out of space to go back!
<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.