06-21-2011, 11:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-21-2011, 11:43 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1308697971' post='9393']
I know testing it first hand is the best solution but I don't have ready access to any of these short of arranging a rental.
My only concern for the 70-300L was if the extending zoom was a weakness for water ingress. It is my first choice if that is not an issue. Got a reference to the level of water resistance? I know it is supposed to have some, but I'd want to know it is significantly better than the 100-400L for it to be worth considering.
The 70-200 II unfortunately is much bigger, heavier, more expensive, requires a TC, has shorter zoom for the only minor plus side of not extending during zoom. As I'm not sure about the 2x performance, I wonder if the f/4 IS with 1.4x might be a cheaper option for the middle ground.
[/quote]
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.a...e=38712022
If you can make total sense of the crops... I can't, yet. But the new 70-200 is great even with 2x TC.
About the level of weather sealing... nothing is ever really brought out about that, or put in numbers. Just that the lens is well sealed against moisture and dust, and than owners have has it getting rained on heavily and the lens being fine after that. How it exactly deals with extending and sucking air in, while keeping moisture and dust out, that is not documented.
What Canon said about it is:
"The lens includes environmental protection, allowing photographers to shoot in harsh conditions - even in the extremes of the desert or rainforest. Canon’s new Fluorine Coating also makes cleaning the lens easier, preventing smears or streaking. "
I know testing it first hand is the best solution but I don't have ready access to any of these short of arranging a rental.
My only concern for the 70-300L was if the extending zoom was a weakness for water ingress. It is my first choice if that is not an issue. Got a reference to the level of water resistance? I know it is supposed to have some, but I'd want to know it is significantly better than the 100-400L for it to be worth considering.
The 70-200 II unfortunately is much bigger, heavier, more expensive, requires a TC, has shorter zoom for the only minor plus side of not extending during zoom. As I'm not sure about the 2x performance, I wonder if the f/4 IS with 1.4x might be a cheaper option for the middle ground.
[/quote]
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.a...e=38712022
If you can make total sense of the crops... I can't, yet. But the new 70-200 is great even with 2x TC.
About the level of weather sealing... nothing is ever really brought out about that, or put in numbers. Just that the lens is well sealed against moisture and dust, and than owners have has it getting rained on heavily and the lens being fine after that. How it exactly deals with extending and sucking air in, while keeping moisture and dust out, that is not documented.
What Canon said about it is:
"The lens includes environmental protection, allowing photographers to shoot in harsh conditions - even in the extremes of the desert or rainforest. Canon’s new Fluorine Coating also makes cleaning the lens easier, preventing smears or streaking. "