1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Which should I buy? A secondhand Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS or New 70-200 f4?

Discussion in 'Lens Matters' started by JMA989, Jul 10, 2017.

  1. JMA989

    JMA989 Member

    With second hand lenses, should I be avoiding japanese imported ones or are these as good as any? Is there any way of knowing if it doesn't say of they are Japanese or not?
     
  2. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    The Mk2 version uses a more modern twist ring to zoom. It is however more expensive in the used market than the original version with the push-pull action, it is also optically superior.
     
  3. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    In truth they are all imported from Japan, it is just the timescale that can be regarded as different! It is easier though if the item is already in the UK as it avoids all problems with customs and transit times. If it is on Ebay, where used items are concerned it is generally pretty clear where they are, with new the sellers of grey imports are a bit devious in this respect.
     
  4. JMA989

    JMA989 Member

    I have never used a converter/extender so forgive the continued questions!

    Would a x1.4 iii Converter work with my 7D and a 70-300 L IS 4-5.6 lens? If so that may sway me. The 70-300 seems a better lens than the mark 1 100-400 and with am extender I would get that extra reach when required. Plus if I change my mind the 100-400 second hand lenses seem to be everywhere and getting cheaper.

    Is there a loss in quality when using an extender? What are the cons?
     
  5. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    Unfortunately the 70-300L is not compatible with any Canon extenders (teleconverters) although you may be able to get away with using a Kenko 1.4x converter but you'd probably need to try it. Some lesn/converter pairings will work while others don't. I have 2 Kenko 2x units one, the Pro-300 version, will not AF on my 40D when coupled to my 70-200 f4L while the more basic MC-7 version does - even though the effective aperture is f8 which is smaller than the 40D should be able to cope with.

    There is theoretically a loss in IQ although the general opinion is that the 1.4x extenders make little or no difference. 2x extenders can be more of a problem, the Canon ones are designed to be compatible with a specific set of lenses (not including the 70-300 as said) with the intention of minimising any loss in quality. How bad the final IQ is depends not only on the extender/converter but also the lens - the better the lens the less IQ loss you will be able to discern. As an example this image was taken with my 70-200 + Kenko MC-7 converter and is only about 2/3rds the original image yet I'd argue that the iQ is more than satisfactory - something which probably would not be true of a lesser piece of glass...
     
  6. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    The three problems with using an extender are:

    A) You lose a stop of light. Not the end of the world unless you need to shoot wide open.

    2) You lose flexibility with choosing autofocus points and may be restricted to central point only.

    iii) Autofocus may not function at all.

    Given the price of a Canon 1.4x iii is creeping up on the price of a mki 100-400L have you thought about a 70-200 and a used 100-400? The mkii 100-400L is an exceptional lens, but that doesn't mean the mki became a rubbish lens overnight.
     
  7. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I am sorry if I misled. I thought the canon converters worked with all the white lenses. I should have thought to check. The compatibility table here may be out of date http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/8/0300004658/01/extender-ef-2x-iii-en.pdf

    There is loss of quality with a converter, more so with a x2 than a x1.4, but if you start with a good lens the effect is not so great. The Canon converters are made to work with specific lenses, "matched" they call it. I think the mkii and mk iii are optically similar but the lens electronics has changed so focussing is more rapid and accurate with a mkiii because of the information passed back to the camera.
     
  8. JMA989

    JMA989 Member

    Ok I am going to go for the Canon 70-300L IS 4-5.6 lens. I am biting the bullet and making a decision!

    If I need more reach then I will just have to go and get a second lens. Does anyone have any experience with the hyper long range lenses from Tamron and Sigma? Im talking the 150-600mm f5-6.3 or similar? This will be later down the road if the 300mm on a crop sensor isn't long enough
     
  9. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    I have no personal experience, they get suitable 'good' reviews. I find searching for lenses on Flickr is useful, especially if the Exif is all present so you can see how they play out.

    This is 600mm, Tamron 150-600, Canon 7d2

    [​IMG]Sula bassana by Simone Toniato, on Flickr

    From this group,

    https://www.flickr.com/groups/2763849@N23/

    which is full of images from that lens.
     
  10. JMA989

    JMA989 Member

    So the 70-300L 4-5.6 IS turned up yesterday and I love it. It is a second hand lens in great condition and although I've only taken a few shots so far, I am really impressed. May not be for everyone but I love the compactness of it, it is a bit heavy but I actually prefer the weight ratio of it compared to my little 18-135 I am used to. It even fits in my camera bag on the body. I would still like a longer reach for wildlife shots but I can see this 70-300 being used a lot. Will post some pics when the weather improves
     
  11. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    This lens is a digital age computation, with coatings to match and a useful spread, suffering little loss in quality at the long end, unlike some other lenses of it's focal length range, add in IS and the much improved high ISO performance of newer cameras and there is a lot to like.
     

Share This Page