April 17, 2014, 11:27:53 PM

Author Topic: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L  (Read 9398 times)

Don Haines

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 2414
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2013, 10:13:02 PM »
I debated a long time between the F4 and the F2.8 version of the 70-200. I ended up going for the F4 version because the sharpness is almost identical and most importantly, it is a LOT lighter.. a big factor when you carry it on hikes and canoe trips.
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2013, 10:13:02 PM »

Grumbaki

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #31 on: September 26, 2013, 10:23:59 PM »
Am I the only one that find that a 800g difference is not worth F4? I mean except for trekkers, elderly and disabled, it shouldn't make such a difference in opinions...IMHO.

jdramirez

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1818
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #32 on: September 26, 2013, 10:56:54 PM »
Am I the only one that find that a 800g difference is not worth F4? I mean except for trekkers, elderly and disabled, it shouldn't make such a difference in opinions...IMHO.

Your not the only one.  I have my 70-200mm f/2.8L Is mkii and the only other lens that I might be willing to consider within that focal range is the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... and it is almost as heavy. 

When I played football, my neck hurt from wearing the helmet during camp and 2 a days... (the smashing into other people probably contributed as well), but after a while, the weight isn't even a factor anymore. 
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100 f/2.8L->85mm f/1.8 USM->135L -> 8mm ->100L

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1036
    • View Profile
    • Zee-bytes
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2013, 11:25:52 PM »
Am I the only one that find that a 800g difference is not worth F4? I mean except for trekkers, elderly and disabled, it shouldn't make such a difference in opinions...IMHO.

Your not the only one.  I have my 70-200mm f/2.8L Is mkii and the only other lens that I might be willing to consider within that focal range is the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... and it is almost as heavy. 

When I played football, my neck hurt from wearing the helmet during camp and 2 a days... (the smashing into other people probably contributed as well), but after a while, the weight isn't even a factor anymore.

That's true with a BlackRapid strap (which is what you should use for hiking anyway IMO) you wouldn't really feel much difference. The standard strap will cut right into your neck.

However for traveling every gram extra is a hassle and you want as little gear as possible. No point lugging extra weight if there is no need for it. 24-105L + 70-300L seems like a pretty sweet travel combo with the 6D. You could fit that in a much smaller bag too. Perfect for little day trips to the zoo or what not. With the weight saving you could chuck a flash in there or a small tripod.
5D II | 7D | EOS M + 22 f2 | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50 f/1.4

s2kdriver80

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2013, 11:33:38 PM »
To me, the issue with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is the size, not so much the weight.  If I never travel, I probably would have opted for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for the extra stop and shallower dof.  But I went with the 70-200mm f/4L IS since I do travel (and on planes) and I'm able to fit two 5D3 bodies, 24-105mm, 16-35mm II, 70-200mm f/4L IS, and two 430EX II Speedlites into a bag small enough to be considered a personal carry-on item.  And so far, the 70-200 f/4L IS has been good enough for events.
-Paul
Canon EOS 5D Mark III x2 | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM | Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM | Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM | Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM | Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM | Canon Speedlite 430EX II x2 | B+W filters | Black Rapid R-straps | Gitzo/Markins

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2013, 11:47:37 PM »
Since you mentioned travel, then the 70-200/4 IS. It is the lightest of the bunch. I have taken it with me to several continents. There is no way I can travel with the f/2.8. The reach (at the expense of speed at 300mm) of the 70-300 is not important to me for travel except in rare cases.

Rienzphotoz

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3253
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #36 on: September 27, 2013, 12:21:38 AM »
Hi
I will mainly use this lens for:
 - Nature
 - People / pets
 - Event
 - Travel (I guess the 24-105L will be my go-to lens here anyway)

So far, I've looked into three lenses:
  • 70-200mm f4L IS
  • 70-200mm f2.8L IS II
  • 70-300mm f4-5.6L IS

As I have enough for the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, this seemed like a no-brainer by reading all the rave reviews online. However, I tried it out in the store yesterday, and found it to be quite heavy compared to the 70-200mm f4L IS. I am afraid that I might buy it, but don't use it as much as it deserves because of lugging around a 1.4kg lens and a 0.7kg camera a full day might be quite tiresome on my arms and back.

Of all the zoom lenses I've ever owned or tried, the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II is the AWESOMEST zoom lens of them all ... but like you said it is kind of heavy to lug around (especially for travel). For versatility 70-300 L IS is the most fun lens of them all, coz it is relatively small in size to pack (although the barrel does extend quite a bit when you zoom). On the other hand 70-200 f/4 L IS is a great lens in a lighter package. But if there are only 2 zoom lenses that I am allowed to carry then they would be 24-105 L IS & 70-300 L IS.
If you have any doubt that the weight, of 70-200 f/2.8 L IS  would put you off from carrying your lens, then get the 70-300 L IS ... it is sharp, fast and small to pack for travel. As the say "the best camera (or lens) is the one you carry".
Since you like nature photography, buying the 70-300 L IS will leave enough money to get the 17-40mm f/4 lens ... which will cover you from ultra-wide to 300mm, a nice range have for travel in a relatively "light package".
Happy shopping
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 12:26:33 AM by Rienzphotoz »
Canon 5DMK3 70D G1X | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 24-70OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | Metabones EF adapter | GoPro Black 3+ | DJI Quadcopter | Manfrotto+Gorilap

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #36 on: September 27, 2013, 12:21:38 AM »

Richard8971

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • "There is no spoon" - Neo
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #37 on: September 27, 2013, 12:32:05 AM »
I had the EF 70-200L IS ISM f4 lens and sold it. I replaced it with the EF 70-300L IS USM lens and I love it. A very "hidden" lens in the lineup and very underrated. I love how compact it is when not in use and the images are stellar. Very sharp throughout the range and I couldn't be happier.

The little bit of added weight is quickly overlooked for the additional reach it gives.

D
Canon 5D2, 7Dv2.03, 50D, 40D, T1i, XTi...XT (& lenses, flahses), various powershots... You get the idea... I have a problem. :)

Wife shoots Nikon, D7000, D7100, (lenses and flashes)... we constantly tease each other that our cameras are better than each others!

AudioGlenn

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 345
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #38 on: September 27, 2013, 02:36:45 AM »
All joking aside, I suggest you get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II plus a couple dumbbells.  If the weight is bothering you that much, you need to start lifting, bro. 

No judgement... seriously.  My neck and shoulders were not conditioned for the first time I carried a DSLR all day (and that was a T3i + 24-105).  I started exercising (nothing crazy) and now, I can shoot a wedding for 10-12 hours carrying TWO mk3s (1 with a 24-70 2.8 II, and 1 with a 70-200 2.8 IS II) without having to pay for it painfully the next day.

If you're unable to work out due to age, medical conditions, etc., that's another story.  Personally, I lost 20 lbs. since I started photography. It's been great for me.

Another thing that helped me was switching out my stupid (or shall I say poorly designed) neck strap for a decent strap.  Currently, I use the Spider Holster system and a spare Carry Speed strap to carry two bodies on serious gigs.  I'm sure you can find a setup that will suit your needs/budget.
5D mkIII  |  40 f/2.8 | 8-15 f/4L | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 1.4x III TC | 600ex-rt | 430 ex ii | EOS M+22mm f/2 | EF to EF-M adapter

GMCPhotographics

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 517
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #39 on: September 27, 2013, 03:45:25 AM »
I had the EF 70-200L IS ISM f4 lens and sold it. I replaced it with the EF 70-300L IS USM lens and I love it. A very "hidden" lens in the lineup and very underrated. I love how compact it is when not in use and the images are stellar. Very sharp throughout the range and I couldn't be happier.

The little bit of added weight is quickly overlooked for the additional reach it gives.

D

I had both the 70-200 L IS f2.8 II and the 70-200 L IS f4 lenses, and I often chose to take the f4 version with me on assignments because it was lighter and easier to handle. I needed to sell a load of stuf to fund my 400mm f2.8 LIS and undortunatly the f4 went...which I regret. AS much as I love the f2.8 version, it's nowhere near as compact or as easy to use. I've tried a few 70-300 L IS lenses, owned by photographer friends and they are very nice. Extreamly sharp and very versatile. I think it's a hard choice between the 70-200 f4 L IS and the 70-300 L IS. Especially if you have a 1.4 TC already. I personally would taken a 70-200 f4 LIS and a 1.4x TC, it's a little lighter and cheaper. but if I saw a good deal on a 70-300 LIS, that would swing me.

It's a real shame that neither the 70-200 f4 LIS or 70-300 LIS is supplied with a tripod collar.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 03:52:13 AM by GMCPhotographics »

greger

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • 7D
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #40 on: September 27, 2013, 05:40:43 AM »
I own the 70-200 f4 L I bought a 1.4 Extender with it and used that combo from day one. Even at 5.6 I could sharpen
the pics in DPP or PS and be happy with the end result. I bought a 2X Extender because I wanted more reach. Hand held
the images were softer than I liked. Mounted on a tripod and using LIve view and manual focusing produced an image that I could sharpen in PS and print. I was happy with the results. I decided to buy a 100-400 L. It's a Heavy Beast.
I am getting used to the weight and am quite happy with the results. I got a pic of a Black Bear that was eating apples
off a branch that it had broken off the tree. I haven't printed it yet but am sure I will be happy with the final print as the
jpeg that I emailed to friends looks great. I don't go on long walks but if I did it would be with the 70-200 F4 IS USM L with the 1.4 Extender  and my 17-85 IS lens. Good Luck in your decision.









Canon 7D | EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark l - EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro - EF 70-200mm   f/4 L IS USM- EF 100-400    f4.5-5.6 IS USM - 1.4 ll and 2X ll Extenders

fragilesi

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #41 on: September 27, 2013, 03:18:44 PM »
I have the 70-300L.  It got a big negative vibe when it came out but I think it's knocked a lot of the doubts aside.  Manageable, very capable and a reasonable price.

It's my go to lens as most of what I do is trying to capture nature outside and outdoor sports.

I would love the 70-200 2.8 II for when I'm shooting gigs which I also like.

It really depends on your priority, if it's indoors then the 70-200 probably has your name on it but if nature is really your thing then the additional reach of the 70-300 does make a very compelling argument.

SDFilmFan

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #42 on: September 27, 2013, 06:29:22 PM »
My telephoto zooms have progressed from 55-250, to 70-200 f4 IS (w/ 1.4X extender), to 70-300L, to the legendary 70-200 f2.8 IS II.  I still have all three L lenses.  And the one I grab when I need a long lens is the 70-300L.

The 70-200 f4 IS is sharp on its own, but degrades with the 1.4X on it.  The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is so heavy it is literally a pain for me to carry; and it comes up short focal-length wise now that I've gone full frame; and at f2.8 the depth of field is so thin I can't get things in focus unless I stop down to f5.6 or so.

The 70-300L gives me extra reach, gives me photos that look as good as the 2.8 delivers, gets both eyes of a meerkat in focus wide-open, and I don't have to ice my elbow after an afternoon at the zoo.  To boot, while thicker than the 70-200 f4, it is shorter and fits in my holster-type bag with enough room left over for a small flash.

So, if I were going on a photo-opportunity-rich trip where I had to carry all my gear, I'd go with my 5D3, the 24-105, and the 70-300L.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #42 on: September 27, 2013, 06:29:22 PM »

fragilesi

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #43 on: September 29, 2013, 06:55:25 AM »

It's a real shame that neither the 70-200 f4 LIS or 70-300 LIS is supplied with a tripod collar.

No, it is absolutely not a shame.  If my 70-300L had come with such a collar it would have cost me 10% for something I would not once have used in the 8 months since I bought it.  I'm very happy that Canon have realised that so many users of this lens would not see the value in having one supplied with it.

nvsravank

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #44 on: September 29, 2013, 08:58:58 AM »
For indoor events where you are standing in the audience and want to take pictures, the 2.8 is a shoo in. The focus is fast. the light gathering capacity means it is easier to focus with a better lens. Your view finder is brighter.

Weight is an issue, but i would still recommend it over any other lens.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L
« Reply #44 on: September 29, 2013, 08:58:58 AM »