70-200 2.8L IS 11 or 70-300 4-5.6L IS?

[JMKC]

Hi, wondered if you guys could help me.

I am using a 7d, and am looking to get a telephoto zoom to be used in a couple of different scenarios. I had been leaning towards the 70-300 given all the positive reviews, however I am going to be using it to take photos while hunting and wondered if it would be fast enough. Especially when duck shooting ie low light situations and shooting on driven pheasant days ie very fast subjects on close to full zoom.

Please let me know your thoughts. I obviously know the benefits of the 70-300 when it comes to weight/price/size but happy to pay up to get the right lens and am worried about having a variable aperture and not being able to stop down to 2.8.

Thanks in advance
Jeremy

[TexPhoto]

Both are great lenses, but in terms of speed/low light, the 70-200 IS II is the clear winner.

[EYEONE]

I'll be honest, I've never shot with the 70-300mmL but I love the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. Love it. It stays on my 7D most of the time. Some will say it is too tight for indoors but I think it's fine. I shoot indoors with it often. It's amazingly sharp and the auto focus is blazing fast. I don't have a single bad thing to say about the 70-200mm.

[kellymjones]

I have the 70-300L and I really like it, but I would definitely lean toward the 70-200/2.8 for low light. At the 200mm end of the 70-200 and the 300mm end of the 70-300, you are talking about 2 stops of difference between 2.8 and 5.6. That's two shutter stops which is the difference between 1/100s and 1/400s. I estimate that would be a big advantage for the 70-200. The other thing to consider is if 200mm or 300mm are long enough for your bird shooting. If so, then the 70-200mm for sure. If not, then you might consider something longer. Good luck and happy hunting.

[K-amps]

Hello:

Whoever owns the 70-200 f2.8 II loves it. The speed of the lens is a big advantage. I got one, returned it and got the 70-300 since I wanted a bit more zoom. The 70-300 might be slower but I do not usually shoot indoors dimly

The 70-300 IS is as sharp if not sharper than the 70-200f2.8. I tested the 70-200 f4, f2.8 and the 70-300 IS, in the copies I got from a local store, the f4 was sharper than the f2.8 (both wide open) and the 70-300 was sharper than the f4. All tests were done at around 135mm on a 5D. Granted if I had stopped the f2.8 to 5.6 it might have been sharper, but I was testing which one had a better bokeh. So while not a true test, the 70-300 IS convinced me that it was as sharp as the others, about $700 cheaper than the f2.8 and 100mm longer,
.

The 70-200mm is a very nice lens but it's not much zoom (even 300mm falls short on occasions), so it depends what is important for you. I'd say goto a local store and try it out or better yet rent one and play with it. They are both great lenses.


For you it's a toss between range and speed, if you want both, get a 400mm prime :-)

[ferdi]

The 70-200 f/2.8L II is just awesome and it made my 70-200 f/4L obsolete.

If you need a bit more reach you can always try an 1.4x or 2.0x extender, the center sharpness is still pretty good with either one. Of course it's not as sharp as the 400 f/5.6L, but you will have the convenience of zoom and IS (if you opt for that model).

For outdoor sports and wildlife I usually equip my 7D with the 100-400L, and keep a second body (5DII or 60D) at hand with a faster lens.

[neuroanatomist]

Especially when duck shooting ie low light situations and shooting on driven pheasant days ie very fast subjects on close to full zoom.

To shoot birds in flight, you'll want at least 1/800 s shutter, and preferably 1/1600 s.  Personally, I find that 400mm f/5.6 is decent as long as there's a reasonable amount of light (ok under a canopy in daylight, struggles a bit at dusk or under canopy with overcast skies).  However, there's another consideration - with a longer lens, or if you're close to your subject, I often need to stop down to f/6.3 or f/7.1 to get the whole bird in focus. 

Here's an example from a cloudy day:


EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/1600 s, f/6.3, ISO 1600

As you can see, with reasonable light and 1/1600 s, I still needed ISO 1600...but I also needed f/5.6 or narrower for DoF.

So, I think you'd be fine with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS.  Having said that, I have and love the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.