p.2 #2 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Squirrely Eyed wrote:
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.
Funny you mention F1- I was at the Austin F1 race in November...and used my 70-300L on my 7D for 80% of the time (400 5.6L for the other 20%). Great results, and not too big to carry around or use in a crowd.
One thing you could consider is- if you have the money to buy a 70-200 2.8 MKII, and you were willing to buy pre-owned, you could pick up a 70-300L AND a 70-200 2.8...the non-IS to stay around $2k in total, or the v1 IS version for a few hundred more in total, which would still put you not too far over the the price of a 70-200 2.8 MKII.
p.2 #3 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
I own both and use both for different occasions. For travel, 70-300L is always a winner.
Others have made excellent points regarding everything else and it's for each own. I'd like to chime in regarding macro.
First of all, none of the two will make it a true macro lens without any additional rigs. From your post, I kinda assume that you just want to take photos of things closeup like not-too-small insects and flowers.
I find that the 70-300L does a good job for this. Both 70-200L II and 70-300L get as close as about 4 feet. But since 300mm is obviously longer than 200mm, basically, the object will appear closer. And I find it's reasonable enough for general closeup use.
p.2 #4 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Why this obsession with the f2.8 70-200mm? I suggest a better choice for people who actually have to carry these lenses for long periods is the 70-200 f4 models vs the 70-300mm. The f4 70-200mms are light and the 70-300mm is heavier but slower. I don't think you can really tell them apart image quality wise. The f2.8 ver II is for those who enjoy spending large sums of money and enjoy have the "biggest and best". Do you fit into that category? I have the f4IS and it is wonderful and never a pain to carry about all day. The 2.8s are just not like this. I may well have bought the 70-300mm L if it had been out when I was looking, although I rarely feel the need for longer than 200mm.
p.2 #5 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Robin Smith wrote:
The f2.8 ver II is for those who enjoy spending large sums of money and enjoy have the "biggest and best". Do you fit into that category? I have the f4IS and it is wonderful and never a pain to carry about all day.
That's your take, but that's definitely not the reason I bought it, nor is it for many many people. Good that the f/4 is good enough for you.
p.2 #6 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
skibum5 wrote:
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.
My copy of the 70-300 L benefited greatly from AFMA. I wasn't pleased with the performance of the lens until I tuned the microfocus adjust using the dot tune method. I'm very happy with the results now.
p.2 #7 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Wahoowa wrote:
I find that the 70-300L does a good job for this. Both 70-200L II and 70-300L get as close as about 4 feet. But since 300mm is obviously longer than 200mm, basically, the object will appear closer.
But this is patently false. As you can see from the specs they both offer the same magnification at mfd and that mfd is the same in both cases. What this means is the 70-300 suffers a huge amount of internal reduction of the FL unlike the 70-200. The advantage for the 70-300 comes when you are well away from mfd and the FL is closer to 300mm. As close-up devices IMO the 70-200 is a better choice as it's two stops faster and you can do more creative things with shallow DoF and you have the option of adding the 1.4x TC to give a 40% boost to magnification.
p.2 #8 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
But this is patently false. As you can see from the specs they both offer the same magnification at mfd and that mfd is the same in both cases. What this means is the 70-300 suffers a huge amount of internal reduction of the FL unlike the 70-200. The advantage for the 70-300 comes when you are well away from mfd and the FL is closer to 300mm. As close-up devices IMO the 70-200 is a better choice as it's two stops faster and you can do more creative things with shallow DoF and you have the option of adding the 1.4x TC to give a 40% boost to magnification. ...Show more →
If the 70-200 II is the same as the other 70-200 close focusing models then it also sucks until stopped down to f/5.6 anyway and DOF at close focus is already very thin at f/5.6. The extender thing is true though. Although can add a 500D to the 70-300L, but I guess you could also add that to the 70-200+1.4x, although I wonder if the quality hold sup at that point.
p.2 #10 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
skibum5 wrote:
If the 70-200 II is the same as the other 70-200 close focusing models then it also sucks until stopped down to f/5.6 anyway and DOF at close focus is already very thin at f/5.6.
I use mine wide open often and IQ looks pretty good to me. Mind you not a lot is in focus at 200mm f/2.8 @ mfd, so really hard to see what might suck.
May 29, 2013 at 11:55 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · 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 →
It can't be the 70-300 L IS lens he used then.........
May 30, 2013 at 12:00 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
jonbrach wrote:
I have both lenses and aside from speed there is little difference...in fact the 70-300L has surprised me as to how incredibly good it actually is
p.2 #13 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I use mine wide open often and IQ looks pretty good to me. Mind you not a lot is in focus at 200mm f/2.8 @ mfd, so really hard to see what might suck.
well maybe the 70-200 2.8 IS II does better at MFD than some of the others that is certainly very possible, but the f/4 IS and 2.8 IS are tragic below f/5.6 at MFD.
p.2 #14 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Robin Smith wrote:
The f2.8 ver II is for those who enjoy spending large sums of money and enjoy have the "biggest and best".
Yup...that's exactly why I have one...it has nothing to do with sometimes needing F/2.8 or its versatility with extenders...
Robin Smith wrote:
I suggest a better choice for people who actually have to carry these lenses for long periods is the 70-200 f4 models[snip]...[snip]...I have the f4IS and it is wonderful and never a pain to carry about all day. The 2.8s are just not like this...
Sometimes having a 2.8 lens can actually save weight and simplify what you need to carry/pack.
At one point I owned and regularly used the 85/1.8, 135/2, 200/2.8, 300/4 IS and 400/5.6. For day trips or travel where I want to pack as simple/light as possible the 70-200/2.8 IS II paired with a couple of extenders can just about cover the roles of all of those lenses. Which would you rather carry? One of the biggest appeals of the newer version of the lens (for me) is that it takes extenders far better than the older version which makes it more versatile for these scenarios..
p.2 #15 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Robin Smith wrote:
Why this obsession with the f2.8 70-200mm? I suggest a better choice for people who actually have to carry these lenses for long periods is the 70-200 f4 models vs the 70-300mm. The f4 70-200mms are light and the 70-300mm is heavier but slower. I don't think you can really tell them apart image quality wise. The f2.8 ver II is for those who enjoy spending large sums of money and enjoy have the "biggest and best". Do you fit into that category? I have the f4IS and it is wonderful and never a pain to carry about all day. The 2.8s are just not like this. I may well have bought the 70-300mm L if it had been out when I was looking, although I rarely feel the need for longer than 200mm....Show more →
A good point that I should also consider the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens if I decide that 70-200mm is sufficient for my needs.
I enjoy reading the different views & opinions of all these different lenses. It helps expand my thought and understanding into what I am really looking for in a lens.
p.2 #16 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
ChrisRD wrote:
Sometimes having a 2.8 lens can actually save weight and simplify what you need to carry/pack.
At one point I owned and regularly used the 85/1.8, 135/2, 200/2.8, 300/4 IS and 400/5.6. For day trips or travel where I want to pack as simple/light as possible the 70-200/2.8 IS II paired with a couple of extenders can just about cover the roles of all of those lenses. Which would you rather carry?
I would rather carry the 70-300L and one extender. With wildlife photography, I have missed many shots while changing TC's.
p.2 #17 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Question for those of you using the Kenko 1.4 on the 70-300L—
My combo hunts quite a bit and has a hard time achieving focus lock. It eventually can find focus and the resulting image is sharp—but not a smooth acquisition.
The same TC does fine on the 70-200 2.8 II and is fast focusing and accurate.
Camera is the 1DX.
Normal behavior for the Kenko1.4 TC on the 70-300L?
p.2 #19 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
You have mentioned background blur. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS with the 1.4 extender gives 280mm at f/4.0, an advantage for blur compared to the 70-300 at f/5.6. On my 5D 3 the 70-200 focuses fast and is sharp with the extender (I use the mark 2 extender). I have had excellent success tracking oncoming sprinters at track meets, even a few minutes after sunset.
Never used the other lens, so can't compare performance. I consider some of the people praising it here to be good sources, however.
p.2 #20 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
For the price of a 70-200 2.8L IS ii you can get (almost) a 70-200 4.0L IS and a 400 5.6L. Both are easy to handhold and I’m quite happy with them on either a 7D or a 5DII.
Or you could get a a 70-200 4.0L IS and a 100 2.8 non-IS and a tripod and a flash that you could trigger off-camera with your 7D.
