Upload & Sell: Off
| p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses |
Squirrely Eyed wrote:
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...Show more →
Tough calls. No doubt for indoor family the f/2.8 is nice (although I wonder if a 17-50 type f/2.8 lens might not be better for that stuff).
For wildlife, both a very short. You'd want a TC on the 70-200 for sure. YOu can use a kenko DGX 1.4x TC on the 70-300L too (although f/8 can start getting tricky) and actually I don't know how 70-300L+TC works with the 7D in terms of AF, that one combo Keno DGX TCs and 70-300L does work on 5D3.
For macro, at least on the 5D3, the 70-300L AF goes to pieces, useless, if even a single extension tube is added. It probably works well still with 70-200 2.8 II + extension tubes. Some people don't like AF for macro, but with the 100L or 60USM it works very well and it can be nice to have for pseudo macros with these tele-zooms.
general walk around tourist the size and weight of the 70-300L are a big plus IMO
so I don't know what to say