p.3 #2 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
I have had both. Used both for sports action, family photos, skiing trips, etc.
At the end of the day, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is just so good that I found myself using it 80% of the time and sold the 70-300L. I agree that the 70-300L is the best of Canon's 70-300 series lenses, but it just doesn't give that 3d sharp-edged image that the 70-200L usually gives.
Most of my shooting had been with a 1d3, but now I'm using my 5d3 more and more and the difference is even magnified using that camera. Both are great lenses, but the 70-200 is superior.
p.3 #3 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Squirrely Eyed wrote:
To the owners of the 70-300mm, does it do any "dust pump" action into the body or is it pretty neutral in that regard?
Well, the body extends and compacts as it's zoomed, so it moves air in and out. But that's not different from the 70-200: just because it has internal zooming doesn't mean it doesn't pump air. When the optical pieces move front to back, air is still coming in/out. It's not hermetically sealed.
May 30, 2013 at 03:44 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
kapytalyst wrote:
I have had both. Used both for sports action, family photos, skiing trips, etc.
At the end of the day, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is just so good that I found myself using it 80% of the time and sold the 70-300L. I agree that the 70-300L is the best of Canon's 70-300 series lenses, but it just doesn't give that 3d sharp-edged image that the 70-200L usually gives.
Most of my shooting had been with a 1d3, but now I'm using my 5d3 more and more and the difference is even magnified using that camera. Both are great lenses, but the 70-200 is superior....Show more →
p.3 #5 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Herderdog wrote:
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?
I think so. It sure is awful with the 5D3 which uses a similar AF to the 1DX. Settles in by ratcheting back and forth like mad, doesn't sound good for the AF. And even then it missed like 50% of the time.
Imagemaster seems to be implying that it works with the 1D4 though?? He never responded though, so it's hard to say.
p.3 #7 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
GAH! A trip to the camera store and after playing with the 70-200mm f/4L IS, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS I can confidently say that the 70-200mm f/2.8 is too big & heavy.
Along the lines of traveling, it's a tougher call between the ~ 300g weight advantage of the 70-200mm f/4 and the reach of the 70-300mm.
p.3 #9 · 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 →
Hmmm... I haven't looked into the magnification ratio specs, but my 70-300L definitely gets as close and get object to be much much bigger than my 70-200L II.
Jun 08, 2013 at 11:08 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.3 #10 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Macro: 55-250 or pick up a true macro for $200-300. I have never used focusing rails. I've only used one speed light, usually ambient.
Handheld & Family: 2.8
Wildlife: 70-300mm
Walk around: 2.8 probably.
The real question is do you want 2.8 speed or 300mm reach.
p.3 #11 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Wahoowa wrote:
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.
It has nothing to do with biggest and best. It is the stop in situations where you need it and the subject isolation possible plus the ability to take the 1.4XIII and still perform well.
p.3 #12 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
kapytalyst wrote:
On that point I can not argue....
I would love to see a comparo of the 70-200 II + TC 1.4III @280mm F 5.6 and F4 ... and the 70-300 IS L at the same settings.
p.3 #13 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
I have both of these you are considering. I use them for quite different purposes. I do like the 70 300 as a lighter weight day trip lens and partner it with the 40 mm pancake in the bag. I really bought it for daytime field sports and it is excels for this. It focuses fast and accurately, much, much better than my 100 400 for sports. I like the 70 200 for indoor sports and I use it quite a lot for portraits. For wildlife you are going to want more reach than either of them. If I could only have one of them, I would start with the 70 200 and an extender. It beats them all for IQ and you can shoot in low light.
p.3 #14 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
saneproduction wrote:
It has nothing to do with biggest and best. It is the stop in situations where you need it and the subject isolation possible plus the ability to take the 1.4XIII and still perform well.
p.3 #15 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
To me image wise it is a toss up. I have found neither to be superior to the other although they both seem better than any Canon Lens I have used. It really depends on if you want the extra 100mm or 2.8. The 300 is more packable but in all honesty if I am going to pack a long zoom I will be taking a bigger bag any way. I would not go on a difficult hike with either one
As far as the 70-200 f4 IS goes it is a wonderful lens as well but it ain't 2.8. This is a huge differnece for me shooting indoors. The 2.8 will almost fill the void of my 85 1.8 or but the f4 will not.
p.3 #16 · 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 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....Show more →
Tough choice - you already have the macro covered. You are going to have to choose but my experience is that for wildlife 300mm is too short. I think the only reasonable wildlife lens on a budget is the 100-400L. But the 70-200 L IS f2.8 is a very very good family inside and out lens, so I would be inclined to go with that if those were my choices. But the choice should be 100-400 vs 70-200. In which case - you would have to choose based on wildlife vs inside family.
But my guess is that the 70-200 will be a keeper (great iq, great low light) and the lack of mm for wildlife and the poor fstop on 70-300 would leave you wanting to trade up later. The 70-300 will not work well for wildlife in the day (too short) or inside (not a good low light lens).
p.3 #17 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
I have all three lenses. The 70-300L is my travel lens. I like having 300mm available for landscapes, and it does quite well outdoors and in the studio for some portraits. It replaced the 70-200 f4IS and 1.4TC because I found it was often not ideal to add a TC in dusty conditions. I kept the f4 IS, so far, because it is light, has great IQ and it is often my choice for long studio sessions where f2.8 is not needed. The 70-200 IS II is my speed lens, where low light and wider apertures are warranted. Because of the weight it doesn't get into my pack very often.
If I had to choose one, with budget and flexibility in mind, it would probably be the 70-200f4 IS. Add a TC and you get to 280mm. You lose f2.8 but gain lower weight without loss of IQ for the most part. You can buy the f4IS and a fast prime for the cost of the 2.8IS II. Add a 135 f2 or the 85 1.8 with the f4 zoom. The 85 on a 7D is a nice combo, or get a 50 variant if you want a more normal perspective.
Jun 11, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · 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.3 #19 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
I would love to see a comparo of the 70-200 II + TC 1.4III @280mm F 5.6 and F4 ... and the 70-300 IS L at the same settings.
I can only help you a little. My 70-200 IS II + 1.4 II @280 f/5.6 is remarkably good. By which I mean that I wonder how much better the 300 f/2.8 could really be. If some one can explain to me how to upload pictures I can show you what I am talking about.
p.3 #20 · 70-200mm f2.8L IS II vs. 70-300mm L lenses
Some more thoughts;
As I said way earlier, I own the 70-200 F2.8 II and also the 70-300L. I use the 2.8 exclusively for low light shooting and the 70-300 almost always when shooting outdoors. The 2.8 lens is sharper without a doubt but the 70-300 is remarkably good as well. I am happy with both. That said, I have shot with the 70-200 F4 IS and you should be aware that its IS is not as advanced as that on either of the other two lenses. Plus it is very noisy in comparison. You can hear the IS engage on all 3 lenses but there is a pretty loud thud with the F4, plus an electronic noise (not loud, but definitely there) as long as that IS remains engaged. It is a bit off putting to some.
As far as using a TC is concerned, I have tried the 1.4x III on the 70-200 IS and the results, while very good are not as good as the 70-300L alone at 300mm.
I also own the 135 F2 and plan on picking up a 200 F2.8 at some point for low light work when I just do not want to be handling the zoom. Both are great, low cost alternatives to the 70-200 if you do not want to spend the money on the zoom. Frankly, I was lucky to afford the zoom so I went that route, but I think I would probably be very happy owning both the primes for low light and the 70-300L for daylight shooting. One more suggestion is to take a look at the non IS version of the 70-200 F2.8. It is still in production and very very good. Not QUITE as sharp as the IS II, but actually sharper than the original 70-200 IS. It is also smaller, lighter and about $1000 cheaper than the IS II version.
Just some more food for thought.
