A tale of 3 Lenses 70-200 F4 IS vs 70-200 F2.8 vs 70-300 F4.5 IS

[Maui5150]

O.k.  Bit of a quandry and looking for suggestions. 

I currently have a t2i and debating moving up to a 7D the 7D replacement or a 5dMkII.  That decision has been postponed til early 2012 to see what Canon does.  I have been close to pulling a trigger on a 7D a few times.

Current main lenses:

EF 50 F1.4L
EFS 10-22
EF 70-200 F4L (non-IS)
EFS 18-135

I got the 10-22 because I like shooting landscapes and like the wide angle shots
I primarily have the 18-135 as my walk around lens and use the 70-200 next most (though AF sticks around 3m)

I primarily shoot portrait/fashion or sport (daylight - triathlons).  I am a newer photographer, still learning.

While I like the 70-200 F4 I have lost some shots because of non-IS with the sports.  I don't anticipate shooting that much at night like football, etc., and shots I lost probably could have been saved shooting faster speed, though might have been pushing the F4 (cyclists going 40 mph)

F4 IS will help me out a little, the 2.8 Non-IS will be better for shooting fashion (I actually like shooting people with the 70-200 )

The 70-300 gives me IS, I lose a bit of speed, but it also gives me a little more distance, especially on a crop.  The IS probably gets me to F3.5 versus my current F4 Non-IS

Weight is a non factor for me.

I am also more than likely going to sell the 18-135 and step up to the 24-105 F4L and interested on comments on that or if there is a better stepping stone for me.  Was also debating if the 24-70 was a better selection or is it nice to have overlap (i.e. 70-200 and 24-105 versus 70-200 and 24-70 which gives me a better combo)

[neuroanatomist]

10-22mm + 24-105mm + 70-200mm f/4L IS or 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS would be excellent.  Choosing between the 70-200mm f/4L IS and 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS comes down to the extra 100mm vs. variable aperture and f/5.6.

Either of the above are great for versatility, but there are no fast lenses there - your 50/1.4 fills that void.

[briansquibb]

I feel much the same as neuroanatomist - except I might be tempted with the 70-200L f/2.8 II - you could always add a 1.4 to give is the extra reach if need - and still be at f/4

This is based on you moving to a 5DII - where the 70-200 is a fabulous shorter telephoto and the bokeh will become more important

The 24-105 on the 5DII works very well indeed, especially when using f/5.6 or f/8

The 10-22 obviously doesn't fit a 5DII - the 17-40L is a very good lens for landscapes - at f/8 and f/11 it is very very sharp and clear.

Brian

[AprilForever]

If you shoot sports, you should indeed be looking for the 7D, and likely also the 70-200 2.8, and or the 300 2.8, if you can. The Sigma 120-300 2.8 is cheaper than the Canon version... There's also the 300 f4, an epic lens, but just not quite a 300 2.8!

[Maui5150]

@Neuroanatomist  - That is what has been killing me with the 70-200 F4 IS versus the 70-300 F4-5.6.  Extra 100 is nice, but I think the 70-200 might be sharper.  You didn't like the 2.8 non-IS?  I think I read that while it is a little faster a lens, the F4 is a tad sharper. 

@Brian - If I could do the 2.8 II trust me, I would.  Trying to make do on a budget, but good point on the extenders too.  Had forgotten that option to give me more reach. 

Still not sure on the 5DmkII.  I like the FF for its little bit better range, but like the AF on the 7D.  If the 7D MK II comes in with better IQ and same or better AF, then I am likely to go that route.  If they make a more entry FF something that sits in between the 5D MK III and the 7D MKII then that probably gives me the best of both worlds, and obviously another couple hundred to sell the 10-22 and get the 17-40 to keep budget, though 16-25 would be sweet. 

@AprilForever - looked at the 300 F4 and very sweet lens indeed.   Not sure I will be shooting sports enough to justify it yet.

If you had to go with the 70-200 F4L IS or the 2.8L Non-IS  to shoot occasional outdoor daylight sports like triathlons, and then do some fashion/portrait.  2.8 gives me some more DOF creativity, but the F4 with IS might help me shoot slightly longer to compensate for the aperture differences.

[awinphoto]

@Neuroanatomist  - That is what has been killing me with the 70-200 F4 IS versus the 70-300 F4-5.6.  Extra 100 is nice, but I think the 70-200 might be sharper.  You didn't like the 2.8 non-IS?  I think I read that while it is a little faster a lens, the F4 is a tad sharper. 

@Brian - If I could do the 2.8 II trust me, I would.  Trying to make do on a budget, but good point on the extenders too.  Had forgotten that option to give me more reach. 

The 2.8 is a fine lens, but if I may, with no IS, 2.8 especially in closer ranges becomes even more thinner DOF and so if you lose shots with no IS, the 2.8 will be even harder to lock and maintain focus, especially on moving subjects... It's great if you have it on a tripod and can rule out camera shake, but other than that.... I've shot with both the 70-200 F4 IS and the 70-300 L IS... assuming your talking about the L version of the 70-300, sharpness is not an issue when determining a lens... they are about the same.... if you're talking about the non L version, then yes, the 70-200 wins out.  For most outdoor situations, I was able to shoot the 70-300L at the Reno National Championship Air Races with jets going near the speed of sound as well as other WW2 era aircraft flying around 400MPH... I didn't have problems with the lens not catching up or being able to use fast shutter speeds on a sunny day with that lens... Albeit I was at a farther distance than cyclists or even motor sports, but for what it's worth...  If you have it in your budget, i'd recommend the L version 70-300 but if you're tighter on cash, the 7D and the 70-200 F4 IS is also a fine combo. 

[neuroanatomist]

@Neuroanatomist  - That is what has been killing me with the 70-200 F4 IS versus the 70-300 F4-5.6.  Extra 100 is nice, but I think the 70-200 might be sharper.  You didn't like the 2.8 non-IS?  I think I read that while it is a little faster a lens, the F4 is a tad sharper. 

No difference in sharpness between the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS.  The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II has a slight edge (very slight) over both. 

As awinphoto, the 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) is great from a tripod, or the right choice if you'll mainly be shooting sports/events under dim light and the IS MkII version is not in your budget.  The f/4L IS is a tad sharper than the f/2.8L non-IS.

[K-amps]

@Neuroanatomist  - That is what has been killing me with the 70-200 F4 IS versus the 70-300 F4-5.6.  Extra 100 is nice, but I think the 70-200 might be sharper.  You didn't like the 2.8 non-IS?  I think I read that while it is a little faster a lens, the F4 is a tad sharper. 

No difference in sharpness between the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS.  The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II has a slight edge (very slight) over both. 

As awinphoto, the 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) is great from a tripod, or the right choice if you'll mainly be shooting sports/events under dim light and the IS MkII version is not in your budget.  The f/4L IS is a tad sharper than the f/2.8L non-IS.

On my copies; the 70-300L is sharper than the already sharp 70-200f2.8 Mk.II at 100mm (The only test I did was at f5.6 @100mm). This is not a competition between the two, but just to let you know how sharp the 70-300L is since you are worried about losing the 70-200 f4.

Attached is a shot I took with the 70-300L; not sharpened, just cropped 100% without resizing. @ 300mm @ f5.6 on an older 5D.

I tested a 70-200f4 once and it seemed sharper than the 70-200f2.8mk.II : I shot them both at their max apertures, i.e. F4 and F2.8 respectively... I know, not fair fight... but told me how sharp the 70-200 IS F4 is wide open.

[thejoyofsobe]

my copy of the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L is hella sharp plus it's got the latest generation IS on it. i get a decent keeper rate hand-holding 300mm at 1/10th of second on a crop body.

but if you're more concerned with stopping action in lower light then the 70-200mm f/4 IS is going to help you out more.

the 70-300mm goes like this:
70-103mm = f/4.0
104-154mm = f/4.5
155-228mm = f/5.0
229-300mm = f/5.6

[papa-razzi]

I primarily shoot portrait/fashion or sport (daylight - triathlons).  I am a newer photographer, still learning.

While I like the 70-200 F4 I have lost some shots because of non-IS with the sports. 

I shoot a lot of sports (my kids).  Outdoor - soccer, track, cross country.
The keys to getting a sharp photo are high enough shutter speed, and the AF capability of your camera & Lens.
I have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS (mI), and I have to turn off the IS for sports shooting.  Camera movement confuses the IS some times, and I get more keepers with it off.  For sports, IS is of no use.  Your 70-200 f/4 should be fine if you have decent light.  Try bumping up the ISO if it is cloudy and you aren't getting the shutter speeds you need.  Light room does a decent job of getting noise out, so I find a higher ISO is a good trade-off in poor light situations.

I have a 24-105 f/4 and I shoot soccer with it and it is amazing, very sharp, good AF.

A 7D is decent up to 1600 ISO, and the AF is really good.  It took me some time to learn the different focusing modes, but once I did, it works very well.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

@Neuroanatomist  - That is what has been killing me with the 70-200 F4 IS versus the 70-300 F4-5.6.  Extra 100 is nice, but I think the 70-200 might be sharper.  You didn't like the 2.8 non-IS?  I think I read that while it is a little faster a lens, the F4 is a tad sharper. 


@AprilForever - looked at the 300 F4 and very sweet lens indeed.   Not sure I will be shooting sports enough to justify it yet.

1.
don't be too worried about 70-300 IS L sharpness compared to 70-200 f/4 IS
With copies I tried the 70-300 was actually sharper at 70mm and above 200mm (using TC on the other) and even a trace shaper near 200mm with both lenses bare. The 70-200 was a little sharper elsewhere but only in the middle around 135mm was it noticeably. If you end up mostly shooting 70-85mm and 185mm-280/300mm then the 70-300L is actually sharper.

2.
for sports stuff like 70-200 2.8 non-IS, 300 2.8 non-IS used, 300 f/4 non-IS used are better

[triggermike]

+1 Pappa-razzi. The IS compensates for your movements, not the subjects movement. Look for faster aperatures to help with moving objects (or use faster/higher ISO's, a la a new 7D.)

The "mode 2" IS, which is for panning, helps with objects moving in a linear fashion - but again this is compensating for your up/down movement while panning, not the subjects movement

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Only around 120-165mm was the difference in favor of the 70-200 f/4 IS anything you might notice and then 70-300L has just as large an advantage 70-85mm on the wide side and an even larger advantage above 200mm (suing TC on the other).

[Maui5150]

WOW.  Really wanted to thank folks for taking the time to chime in.  So much great feedback and while I can read a dozen reviews of which half the material is over my head, this real life feedback, for what is worth, means a lot. 

Based on what I am hearing the 2.8 IS might hurt me more than help me hand with AF. 

Really brings be down to 70-200 F4L IS versus 70-300 F4-5.6L IS  (and yes I was thinking the L to one of the posters, not the non L version)  and the more I hear the feedback on the 300 being sharper at the extreme ends, then it sounds like for my portrait work, below 100 it is either sharper or the same, I may give up a little bit in the middle, but as I get closer to 200 and beyond, I start getting the advantage back. 

Pulled the trigger on a 24-105 F4L today on a RytherCamera Cyber Monday sale.  $899 real hard to pass up, though have heard some customer service nightmares, mainly Bait and Switch... So at least AMEX has been good to me resolving issues, so think I am o.k.  Won't sell my 18-135 just yet, but with my hood, should bring my cost on the 24-105 down to $700 or so. 

Difference is $230 between the 70-200 F4L IS and the 70-300 F4-5.6L IS is really not that much for an extra 100m worth of range with similar performance and on my T2i or 7D if I go that route, that is actually 160m more.

Not perfect but I think gives me better balance, extended range and only one lens to replace should I go FF in the future

Thanks again for the great feedback

[Zo0m]

I think you'll get a nicer subject seperation (DOF) with the f2,8 compared to the other choices... I suppose you could go with the non-IS version with a monopod (for shooting in limited light) or the IS2 as the deluxe option...