70-300L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?

[Menace]

70-200 2.8 IS II 

[Jotho]

70-200 II.  It excels at sports and portraits.  For games under the lights, the max aperture advantage over the 70-300L is significant when you're trying to freeze action in low light situations.  The 70-200 performs OK with the 1.4x III:  IQ degrades slightly and AF speed takes a hit but gets you to 280mm at f/4, which is still a stop faster than the 70-300L.  The 2x III makes it notably soft (viewing at 100%) and AF speed takes another hit as well, so I wouldn't recommend using it with the 2x unless you really have to.

The 70-300L is good when there is enough light.  It's more compact and weighs less (~1 lb less if although it still weighs about 2.5 lb), which makes it a better choice for places like zoos or day trips.  If you're ok with the weight and cost of the 70-200 II, then get the 70-200 II.  The 70-300L is a great choice if you're budget limited or travel a lot and like to travel light because one lens can cover most of your telephoto range.

Most importantly, you get access to more AF sensor points with the 70-200L II IS lens on the 1D4 and 1DX.  You can shoot sports very easily with the 70-200 whereas the 70-300 performs rather poorly due to lack of AF sensor type access.

Hey, I've been looking to get the 70-300 L, recommended by people on this forum a few weeks back. I have a 5dMkii. I'm not all that familiar with all the terms related to photography, could you please explain what you mean with 'lack of AF sensor type access'? Won't the lens work with all AF points in the Mkiii?

[JRS]

could you please explain what you mean with 'lack of AF sensor type access'? Won't the lens work with all AF points in the Mkiii?

The 61 points AF will only work with 2.8 or faster lens...

[bdunbar79]

70-200 II.  It excels at sports and portraits.  For games under the lights, the max aperture advantage over the 70-300L is significant when you're trying to freeze action in low light situations.  The 70-200 performs OK with the 1.4x III:  IQ degrades slightly and AF speed takes a hit but gets you to 280mm at f/4, which is still a stop faster than the 70-300L.  The 2x III makes it notably soft (viewing at 100%) and AF speed takes another hit as well, so I wouldn't recommend using it with the 2x unless you really have to.

The 70-300L is good when there is enough light.  It's more compact and weighs less (~1 lb less if although it still weighs about 2.5 lb), which makes it a better choice for places like zoos or day trips.  If you're ok with the weight and cost of the 70-200 II, then get the 70-200 II.  The 70-300L is a great choice if you're budget limited or travel a lot and like to travel light because one lens can cover most of your telephoto range.

Most importantly, you get access to more AF sensor points with the 70-200L II IS lens on the 1D4 and 1DX.  You can shoot sports very easily with the 70-200 whereas the 70-300 performs rather poorly due to lack of AF sensor type access.

Hey, I've been looking to get the 70-300 L, recommended by people on this forum a few weeks back. I have a 5dMkii. I'm not all that familiar with all the terms related to photography, could you please explain what you mean with 'lack of AF sensor type access'? Won't the lens work with all AF points in the Mkiii?

Sure!  Ok, let's just say the 5D Mark III has a potential of 61 AF points and AF sensor types that can be used.  The # you can actually use in certain situations is dependent on the lens being used as well.  More importantly, the PATTERN used depends on the lens.  The 70-200L II IS lens is in Group A, where all 61 AF points can be used in Autofocus mode.  This pattern, however, includes dual cross types and cross types.  This is superior in sports/action motion.  The 70-300L is in Group E, where again, all 61 AF points are available.  However, the pattern here is only certain or a few of the cross types.  So its pattern is far inferior to the 70-200L IS II lens for action/sports/tracking, etc.  I tried to type this off the top of my head, so maybe someone can cite sentences from a manual or do a better job than what I have explained.

[bdunbar79]

could you please explain what you mean with 'lack of AF sensor type access'? Won't the lens work with all AF points in the Mkiii?

The 61 points AF will only work with 2.8 or faster lens...

NO.

[Jotho]

70-200 II.  It excels at sports and portraits.  For games under the lights, the max aperture advantage over the 70-300L is significant when you're trying to freeze action in low light situations.  The 70-200 performs OK with the 1.4x III:  IQ degrades slightly and AF speed takes a hit but gets you to 280mm at f/4, which is still a stop faster than the 70-300L.  The 2x III makes it notably soft (viewing at 100%) and AF speed takes another hit as well, so I wouldn't recommend using it with the 2x unless you really have to.

The 70-300L is good when there is enough light.  It's more compact and weighs less (~1 lb less if although it still weighs about 2.5 lb), which makes it a better choice for places like zoos or day trips.  If you're ok with the weight and cost of the 70-200 II, then get the 70-200 II.  The 70-300L is a great choice if you're budget limited or travel a lot and like to travel light because one lens can cover most of your telephoto range.

Most importantly, you get access to more AF sensor points with the 70-200L II IS lens on the 1D4 and 1DX.  You can shoot sports very easily with the 70-200 whereas the 70-300 performs rather poorly due to lack of AF sensor type access.

Hey, I've been looking to get the 70-300 L, recommended by people on this forum a few weeks back. I have a 5dMkii. I'm not all that familiar with all the terms related to photography, could you please explain what you mean with 'lack of AF sensor type access'? Won't the lens work with all AF points in the Mkiii?

Sure!  Ok, let's just say the 5D Mark III has a potential of 61 AF points and AF sensor types that can be used.  The # you can actually use in certain situations is dependent on the lens being used as well.  More importantly, the PATTERN used depends on the lens.  The 70-200L II IS lens is in Group A, where all 61 AF points can be used in Autofocus mode.  This pattern, however, includes dual cross types and cross types.  This is superior in sports/action motion.  The 70-300L is in Group E, where again, all 61 AF points are available.  However, the pattern here is only certain or a few of the cross types.  So its pattern is far inferior to the 70-200L IS II lens for action/sports/tracking, etc.  I tried to type this off the top of my head, so maybe someone can cite sentences from a manual or do a better job than what I have explained.

Ah, yes now I remember having looked (but not read thoroughly) at that in the manual while checking my current lenses.Thanks for your reply!

[expatinasia]

I have both and think you would be better to get the 70-200 2.8 IS II for reasons already mentioned.

Both are great lenses but you do tend to get what you pay for, and as long as you can afford it then the 70-200 2.8 IS II is what I would get if I had the choice.

[M.ST]

If you have a FF body get the EF 70-200 2.8 IS II. It´s performs better and you can shoot pictures in low light conditions.

The 70-300L is very good on APS-C bodys. On FF you see (with my tested lens) CA´s and vignetting.

[Act444]

Ummm no.  The 70-200L II IS is sharper than the 70-300L.

I have to agree. Although the margin (difference) is actually quite small near the long end, and at smaller apertures (probably won't notice a difference, honestly). But at 70mm there's no contest, the 70-200 is clearly better.

[Drizzt321]

How's the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM compared to the 70-300L? Obviously it's not going to be built quite like the L lenses, but otherwise does it compare well?

Optically inferior, by a substantial margin.

Ah, too bad. It'd probably be a handier/less obvious of a lens than the white L version.

[pwp]

There are plenty of reasons why the 70-200 f/2.8isII is found in just about every professional Canon shooters bag worldwide, usually permanently attached to a body. It's just the most amazing lens, for reasons that have been expounded ad-infinitum on this list and all over the www for years. Ignore this at your peril. This lens has credibility plus.

The 70-300L is without question a very fine piece of glass and a bargain to boot, but the 70-200 f/2.8isII just ticks a hell of a lot more boxes.

-PW

[Marsu42]

I would certainly like the extra reach of the 70-300, but I'm afraid it won't be as versatile with the smaller max aperature.  The 70-200 2.8 IS II is nice and fast, but it's expensive and won't reach quite as far. 

I've got the 70-300L, and while the 70-200L is of course the "money is no issue" pro and superior lens (has an edge in sharpness, and of course constant f2.. And if you've got the cash it's not that hard to decide for you, but my 2cents to remember anyway...

* Weight! Go to a shop, plug on a 70-200L + a 600rt-type flash and leisurely hold it to eye level for some time or dangle it from your hand. Right, that's why I got the lighter 70-300L for all day outdoor shots which creates much less torque on your wrist because the weight is nearer to the camera body.

* AF: On the 5d3/1dx the 70-300L only has horizontal af points to the side, so that's a drawback (see the manual). But af precision of the 70-300L is very good on the 5d3 anyway, even compared to the 70-200L: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-3a-canon-lenses

* Aperture: The 70-300L is a outdoor good light lens. full stop. But then it excels, because the depth of field @300mm and f5.6 is extremely thin anyway, so in may cases you wouldn't want to stop down for this reason. Shutter speed should be no issue, esp. on full frame with higher iso capability.  If you need a fast aperture it is a feasibly alternative to get some also light prime lenses in addition, word is you cannot beat a 135L portrait with the 70-200L, though the latter of course is more versatile.

* Zoom lenght: Standard advice is that a tc is for occasional use and not for always on (drop in sharpness, slower af). If you don't think 200mm is enough, get a 70-300L or wait for the new 100-400L. Btw, you can plug on a Kenko 1.4x tc on the 70-300L to get to 420mm @f8, iq is good and non-mission critical af in good light is ok.

[FarQinell]

If you are shooting a lot beyond 200 then the 70-300L is the best choice.

The ISO 12233 charts (the-digital-picture) clearly show that the 70-300L @ 300 is sharper than the 70-200/2.8 II plus latest Canon 1.4XTC @ 280.

These charts also show that even @ 200 there is not much difference in performance between either. Obviously in low light the f2.8 is a much better performer.

The 70-300L is a new design, will be cheaper and lighter and you have the satisfaction of knowing that Canon do not do dud L lenses!

PS I suspect that the (allegedly) forthcoming 100-400L will be a scaled up version of the 70-300L

[garflee]

Thank you everyone!  Very thoughtful comments.  I'll def make my decision before the summer sale ends.  Incredible pros and cons on both sides - just need to figure out which are most important to what I want in this lens.

Thanks!

[HW]

As mentioned above, you should check out the lensrentals blog article with regards to focus accuracy.

It says 5D III in AF mode yields a more precise focus with the 70-300 L than the 70-200 II L (almost half the value of standard deviation, 13 vs. 24),

"70-300mm L appears to focus with the accurate group, while the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is kind of on the border. Not in the teens certainly, but it’s the best of all the other lenses."