11-12-2011, 11:35 AM
[quote name='Kingcanon' timestamp='1321097184' post='12870']
Anybody good / bad experience on the Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 L IS lense ?
Considering to buy this rather new lense, but some doubts on its aperture (5.6) and DOF (and fact that no Canon converter like 1,4 can be used on it).
Looks to me like good alternative between Canon EF 70 - 200 F4 L IS USM lense and the Canon EF 100 - 400mm F4.5 - 5.6 L IS USM lense.
The Canon 70 - 200mm L F2.8 IS II USM is bit too expensive for my budget. Is the difference with the former non IS really worth de price difference ? Do you need the IS on this lense ?
I am mostly interested in travelling, landscape, nature, animals and sports photography.
Thanks in advance for your advice.
[/quote]
I have tested the 70-300 L in store because I was thinking to replace my 70-200 f/4 L IS. I decided agianst it because of weight. The 70-300 L is 300g heavier than the 70-200 f/4. The 70-200 2.8 models (with and w/o IS) are double the weight of the f/4 lenses. Unless you really need 300mm I wouldnt want to travel with anything heavier than the 70-200 f/4, in particular if I were to carry additional lenses. Note that 200mm on a 50d are very long and unless you go on a safari you, probably wont need more focal length
Anybody good / bad experience on the Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 L IS lense ?
Considering to buy this rather new lense, but some doubts on its aperture (5.6) and DOF (and fact that no Canon converter like 1,4 can be used on it).
Looks to me like good alternative between Canon EF 70 - 200 F4 L IS USM lense and the Canon EF 100 - 400mm F4.5 - 5.6 L IS USM lense.
The Canon 70 - 200mm L F2.8 IS II USM is bit too expensive for my budget. Is the difference with the former non IS really worth de price difference ? Do you need the IS on this lense ?
I am mostly interested in travelling, landscape, nature, animals and sports photography.
Thanks in advance for your advice.
[/quote]
I have tested the 70-300 L in store because I was thinking to replace my 70-200 f/4 L IS. I decided agianst it because of weight. The 70-300 L is 300g heavier than the 70-200 f/4. The 70-200 2.8 models (with and w/o IS) are double the weight of the f/4 lenses. Unless you really need 300mm I wouldnt want to travel with anything heavier than the 70-200 f/4, in particular if I were to carry additional lenses. Note that 200mm on a 50d are very long and unless you go on a safari you, probably wont need more focal length