p.1 #1 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
This is a slight redo of a previous thread, I think I've knocked the 100mm L macro lens off my list. Now I have a chance between a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and a 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens. New, about $700 price difference. Not as much if I'm able to find a Canon refurb with 15% off (unlikely at this point, we'll see).
I can see where the price, weight, and reach of the 70-300mm would be preferable, and I can see where the aperture of the 70-200mm would be preferable.
So please impart your wisdom on me & help me decide.
I'm very much an amateur and I like to shoot a variety of things with my 7D, like:
...macro photography, but am not ready to invest in a true macro rig (focusing rails, additional lighting, etc.
...family photography both inside & outside, currently I only have 1 speedlite to illuminate them when needed.
...wildlife photography and often can't get close enough for the shots I really want.
...mostly handheld.
...walkaround (tourist) shots.
p.1 #2 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
I just got back from shooting a week in Costa Rica with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. A fellow photog on the trip brought the 70-300 and absolutely hated it. He usually shoots the 70-200 non-IS and rented the 70-300 for the trip to save weight and get an extra reach. He said it doesn't even compare to shooting he non-IS 70-200. And looking at his shots they couldn't optically compare either. The 70-200 is one of Canon's best and I don't regret the purchase for a second. It's probably my favorite lens in my bag and that's with a 16-35 f/2.8 and a 24mm TS-E.
p.1 #3 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
I own the 70-200 2.8L II and I recently used the 70-300 L.
The 70-200 II is in a class all by itself when it comes to performance but the 70-300 L is no slouch either. I hope to buy the 70-300 L for football season to use on the second body.
p.1 #4 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Quite honestly I have been in these situations before, trying to decide on the right lens for 'me'.
Though you will find many opinions to support one or the other it might be best for you to get each in your hands and see what you like. In no way from the numerous posts in the Nature and Wildlife forum have I seen anything inferior about the 70-300L and the impressions of it owned by highly qualified and Canon experienced shooters back that up.
I have not shot with either of them but I have heard directly from owners of both. Amazingly quick focus from the 70-200 II L and superb sharpness and great color! The 70-300L very fast for this category of lens and excellent sharpness and color. More reach for any kind of birding is helpful and 300 is still very short in most situations.
The body you use, your personal experience and knowledge of photography and processing will be the end result of what either of what these lenses can do. AF tracking and set up can play a big part of resulting keepers for sports shooting. These are 'professional' lenses, it may take you a year or two to really begin to realize and take advantage of what they offer. Don't think for a minute that you can not take a great image with and inexpensive lens, I keep a cheap 70-300mm zoom ($125) with me that has taken some of my most memorable images and they are not inferior to ones taken by $6000 dollar lenses I have owned.
The Image Stabilization will be helpful for handholding, it does not fix out of focus or motion blur by not selecting the right shutter speed for moving object as in your sports. Don't buy a great lens and put a cheap filter on the front of it either!
I will kindly disagree that for almost all of your shooting that you will be able to tell a shot from the 70-200 2.8L from one from the 70-300 L. If you understand the potential benefits of a larger aperture and a faster focusing lens then you can begin to appreciate the added cost of the 70-200L. It still can't do 300mm. They both are 'L' glass and you won't disappointed with the IQ of an image unless 'you' have done something wrong
Food for thought, have you seen the quality reviews by owners of the Tamron 70-300 VC zoom, a great value!
My summary, you really won't know what is the best lens for 'you' until you try them both!
Best of luck, you can't go wrong with either
Karl
If you really want to see just how varied results are with highly rated lenses and bodies just find a thread for a high end lens like the 85 1.2L II where post your best shot is the title of for that matter any body or lens and look at the varied results, some are wonderful, some are embarrassing. 'You' are going to make the biggest difference to 'your' results......trust me on this one
p.1 #5 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
PeakPhoto wrote:
I just got back from shooting a week in Costa Rica with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. A fellow photog on the trip brought the 70-300 and absolutely hated it. He usually shoots the 70-200 non-IS and rented the 70-300 for the trip to save weight and get an extra reach. He said it doesn't even compare to shooting he non-IS 70-200. And looking at his shots they couldn't optically compare either. The 70-200 is one of Canon's best and I don't regret the purchase for a second. It's probably my favorite lens in my bag and that's with a 16-35 f/2.8 and a 24mm TS-E. ...Show more →
Hmm He must have had a bad 70-300L. No way it pales compared to the 70-200 non-L and at the edges and corners on FF it is far better.
p.1 #6 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Agree with skibum. The 70-300L I had was just as sharp as the 70-200 2.8, although obviously slower. Focus was fast and accurate. If you don't need the 2.8, it's between it and the 70-200 f4LIS. Or if you can sacrafice a little IQ, and want to save hundreds of dollars, one of the cheaper alternatives. Neither lens is going to do well all the things that you want to do.
p.1 #7 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Squirrely Eyed wrote:
I'm very much an amateur and I like to shoot a variety of things with my 7D, like:
...macro photography, but am not ready to invest in a true macro rig (focusing rails, additional lighting, etc.
70-200 2.8 IS II maybe works a touch better for that since it has AF when using extension tubes and the 70-300L more or less does not. perhaps the 500D is better for such longer lenses but it doesn't come in 67mm so fo rthe 70-300L you use the ability to use the hood with it since you need to get a large 72mm and step it down. I wonder if the Nikon 500D is as good, at least they have the sense to make them in 67mm.
...family photography both inside & outside, currently I only have 1 speedlite to illuminate them when needed.
f/2.8 helps for indoors if you want to use natural lighting and not bump ISO up as far.
...wildlife photography and often can't get close enough for the shots I really want.
You will need to use a TC with the 70-200 as even 300mm is fairly short never mind 200mm.
Sometiems it can be a pain to need to swap it on (for reach) and then off (for better general image quality).
...mostly handheld.
both have good IS, one is much faster which could help so long as f/2.8 provides enough DOF
...walkaround (tourist) shots.
70-300L is a lot smaller and lighter and I find it's a lot more fun to drag around for that sort of stuff than the 70-200 2.8s! even the 70-300L is a bit bulky, but the 70-200 much more so still.
p.1 #8 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
I made some gear changes to enable me to own both, as I found their usages were too different for me to choose one.
70-200 2.8II
-indoor sports shots (daughters swimming & soccer)
-"photo shoots" with my family, inside or out
-airshow lens (with a 2xTCIII, creating a solid 140-400mm f/5.6)
70-300L
-zoo's (7D and lens over my shoulder for the day)
-racetracks (along with a 400mm DO in a hiking backpack)
-vacations (along with a 15-85mm in a hiking backpack)
Sure- one could argue that all of the things listed above for the 70-300L could be done with the 70-200 II, and as a matter of fact they were until I had the 70-300L, but the reality is that when I'm mobile and it's hot outside, and/or my family is with me, the 70-200 simply got in the way, or I was on the side of some dusty racetrack fiddling around with teleconverters.
Some will look at my scenario and say they don't see the big deal and use the 70-200 for all the above items, and that's great. For me, I found my camera wasn't being used as much because of the size/weight of the 70-200, which was enough to convince me to try out the 70-300L, which I've been very happy with.
p.1 #9 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
This truly isn't a problem. Either will be more than fine for the uses you state. Will one be better than the other in certain circumstances, sure, but the extent is debatable at best. Personally weight and convenience are what matter to me so I chose the 70-200f4 IS over the two you're looking at. That being said I do at times want that extra 100mm of the 70-300.
p.1 #10 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
I own both lenses (and the 28-300 which also covers the same range). I originally had the 70-200 and then added the 70-300 because I wanted something smaller, lighter for travel and something that has 300mm "built in".
The summary is that I use the 70-200 in low light or when I need the subject separation. I use the 70-300 for everything else: When I want to capture a deer or even a "telephoto landscape", I don't shoot at f2.8 anyway - I want some depth of field. And for shooting at f8 (which would be my usual setting), I can't tell a difference between the two lenses, other than the 70-300 being lighter, smaller, and having the full range at all times (without futzing with a TC).
I would not think to use either of them for macro, then again I have a 100L.
p.1 #11 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
For close-up (these lenses aren't for macro work) the 300 offers no advantage over the 200, since despite the same mfd it's also got the same magnification (meaning it's true FL at mfd is closer to 200mm). So you get no working distance advantage for skittish critters at or near mfd. Of course well away from mfd, the 300mm will always have an advantage for magnification. Then again you can use a 1.4x TC on the 70-200 and end up with 40% greater magnification at mfd, so it's got more potential as a close-up lens and you are still a stop faster.
If you are willing to get a 70-200 and weight isn't an issue, then I would also consider a 100-400L over the 70-300L as it's a much better choice for wildlife where you often never have enough reach.
p.1 #13 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
I have both. I find the 70-200 to be a bit sharper, but the 70-300 is excellent. It's size and weight are a big advantage. Carrying around the 70-200 all day can be a chore. Why do I own both? 70-200 for low light or indoors. 70-300 for most everything else. It IS a bit slower to focus, but the difference is not big.
You honestly should try out both before purchasing to see if you can deal with the weight of the 70-200.
p.1 #14 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
As always the sage advice of FM members is enlightening.
The weight of the 70-200 does concern me a bit, as you all mentioned I will need to get hold of the lens to truly know if it will be a detriment.
I also need to seek out pictures are max aperture for the 70-300mm to ensure it has the DOF I like. Typically I enjoy shooting at wider apertures to get a little more subject separation and background blur, but I also know what with the 300mm f/4L lens it gives plenty of separation at f/4.
Looks like a trip to the camera store is in order.
p.1 #15 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
this is slightly off topic, so please excuse me:
what's the deal with the weather sealing (or lack thereof) on the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS?
is this thing really just like any other non-L lens as far as sealing goes? no way am i buying what is essentially a 100% outdoor lens that can't take a little rain.
p.1 #16 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
I have both as well and they are both great lenses...both super sharp with excellent AF and build quality. As others have already said...they're really quite different lenses and I would choose based on the type of shooting you do most often.
The smaller/lighter 70-300 is great for day trips and travel...and having the extra length without needing to carry/use a TC is more convenient IMO.
The 70-200 gives you the much wider aperture when you're in low light and/or need the DOF separation and is an amazingly versatile 'swiss army knife' type lens when paired with extenders...but with the penalty of extra size/weight/cost.
Something else to consider (depending on your shooting needs)...given the large price difference between the two zooms...maybe pairing the 70-300 with one of the cheaper fast primes in that FL range (ex. 85/1.8) to cover situations where you might need the extra aperture could work for you...and you'll still have spent less money overall.
It's a tough choice to help someone else with because it will really come down to your preferences and shooting needs. I may have to let one of them go soon to fund some other things and I'm still tossing around which one I will keep...
p.1 #17 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
i only have the 70-300 and like it. ín low light it's not the best performer at 300, but not bad either. one of the things that helped me decide is the website of sheila smart. she has a special 70-300 gallery as a showcase. she's on fm as well.
p.1 #19 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Squirrely Eyed wrote:
As always the sage advice of FM members is enlightening.
The weight of the 70-200 does concern me a bit, as you all mentioned I will need to get hold of the lens to truly know if it will be a detriment.
I also need to seek out pictures are max aperture for the 70-300mm to ensure it has the DOF I like. Typically I enjoy shooting at wider apertures to get a little more subject separation and background blur, but I also know what with the 300mm f/4L lens it gives plenty of separation at f/4.
Looks like a trip to the camera store is in order....Show more →
The distance you are from the subject will determine more of how soft your BG is, longer focal length at closer distance will normally yield softer BG.
The 70-300 L at 300mm I believe is f/5.6 not f/4?
Subject separation also depends on light behind subject, a darker BG will perceive more separation, can also be achieved in post work to darken BG.
p.1 #20 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Yes, the 70-300mmL is f/5.6 @ 300mm. I was referring to the 300mm f/4 prime that I rented for F1.
As suggested I definitely need to get my hands on them. My challenge is that I'd want ~ 70-100mm for indoor (since I currently max out at 55mm), anything over 100mm would end up being outdoor. Perhaps I should take the money saved by buying the 70-300mm and use it to get some lighting rigs for the house.
