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

[klement]

I have both 70-300 and 70-200 2,8 IS
Conclusion: For light travel the 70-300 is ideal. Makes good sharp picts if you add 2 stops to the focal etc.
But the king of zooms must be the 70-200 2.8 IS. Everything it does it does better than any other zoom and better than most non-zoom lenses. Together with the extenders x 1.4 og x 2 mark III you can du wonderfull
long shots.
I use it with Canon 5 D mk. III.
Claus.

[dadgummit]

I have both too,

The 70-200 IS 2.8 II is sharper (slightly) faster 1-2 stops, and focuses faster.  It is very heavy so if you ever have a situation where yo will be carrying it for an extended period of time you will not be happy. 

The 70-300L is still very sharp even wide open.  much smaller and lighter.  great range, fast focus, and still an L lens in every way. 

When I attend family picnics or sporting events where I want the speed and IQ and I can put it down I take the 70-200.  When I go to the zoo, hiking, Sea World with the family, etc the 70-300 comes with me. 

[sdsr]

I don't own, but have rented, the 70-200 2.8 II and yes, it's as good as everyone says it is.  If you need the extra low-light/speed, don't mind the weight, and can afford it, go for it. 

That said, there are different types of versatility.  Assuming I needed the extra reach of the 70-300 L I bought one, but must have received a bad copy - sometimes it was no sharper (sometimes it was distinctly less sharp) than my 70-300 non-L IS, so I returned it.  While wondering whether to try another copy or just take a deep breath and buy a 70-200 2.8 II I came across a good price on a used 70-200 f/4 IS and bought that as a stop-gap.  Like the 70-200 2.8 II it's so sharp at 200mm that cropping it to 300mm equiv. gives better results than I've obtained at 300mm with either the 70-300mm lenses I've owned or the 300mm f/4 IS I rented, plus it has the not inconsiderable advantage of being smaller and lighter than the 70-300 L, not to mention the 70-200 2.8 II (it's barely bigger/heavier than the 70-300 non-L). 

So unless you miss the ability to go to 2.8 (which you wouldn't have with the 70-300 L either, of course), it seems to me that the 70-200 f/4 IS is wonderfully versatile - I can easily carry it around all day and had no hesitation taking it with me to Paris a few months ago; not sure I could say that about the 70-200 2.8 II.  I still have a nagging desire for a 70-200 2.8 II but can't help wondering just how often I would notice an improvement....  But of course only you know what you want/need.  Best of all, you could rent both and find out first-hand which lens serves you better. (All of the above was based on my experiences with a 5DII.)

[bdunbar79]

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."

Except in sports, when you  need dual cross types and cross types.  And a wider aperture.  General use, I'd probably pick the 70-300L because of the range.  I'd never take the 70-300L to sports though. 

[Drizzt321]

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."

Except in sports, when you  need dual cross types and cross types.  And a wider aperture.  General use, I'd probably pick the 70-300L because of the range.  I'd never take the 70-300L to sports though.

If I recall correctly, that's also with the center point, not all AF points. I could be wrong though.

[K-amps]

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.

...the 70-300 is sharper than the 70-200

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

+1.  When I read comments like that, my first question is, have you properly AF microadjusted both lenses?  Usually, the answer is no.

I have tested both lenses @ 100mm (actually tested 3 samples of the 70-200mk.ii which tested very similar to each other) and found the 70-300L was a tad sharper.

Yes I did not AFMA on my 5Dc  , but the fact that it was sharper than all 3 70-200mk.ii's told me what I needed to know. Having said that, the 70-200mk.ii is sharp enough, heck it is VERY sharp. The 70-300L gets a bad rap because of it's smallish and variable aperture, otherwise it is a very capable lens. It blows the non-L versions of the 70-300mm lenses out of the water. The IQ difference is huge. Read review and see samples on TDP.

[bdunbar79]

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."

Except in sports, when you  need dual cross types and cross types.  And a wider aperture.  General use, I'd probably pick the 70-300L because of the range.  I'd never take the 70-300L to sports though.

If I recall correctly, that's also with the center point, not all AF points. I could be wrong though.

What is with the center point?  The available dual cross types and cross type sensors available is with all AF points.  In order to use dual cross typeS, you need one more than one point, right?  Look at your manual, it's explained fully.

[Drizzt321]

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."

Except in sports, when you  need dual cross types and cross types.  And a wider aperture.  General use, I'd probably pick the 70-300L because of the range.  I'd never take the 70-300L to sports though.

If I recall correctly, that's also with the center point, not all AF points. I could be wrong though.

What is with the center point?  The available dual cross types and cross type sensors available is with all AF points.  In order to use dual cross typeS, you need one more than one point, right?  Look at your manual, it's explained fully.

Read the LensRentals articles, it explicitly states that the center AF point was the only one use for the phase detect tests. My point is that while the article might show the 70-300L having more accurate focusing with the newer cameras, but it doesn't tell the whole store because it's only using a single point. So the AF accuracy might be quite a bit different between the 70-300L and 70-200L at different points, or using different groupings of points.

Now, that doesn't mean you are at all wrong about the 70-200L being a much better choice for sports in general, especially with the significantly wider aperture enabling the more accurate AF points and higher shutter speeds. I just wanted to point out that using the single center point doesn't specifically link to it being a better or worse lens for sports. It's the other factors aside from the more accurate focusing that makes the 70-200L the better lens.

[bdunbar79]

That's fine, I just didn't know what you meant.  Thanks for the clarification.

[OliverO]

I've been using the 70-300L with a 5D mk.III for about a month now, and really like it. It is not only lighter than the 70-200 IS 2.8, but significantly shorter as well. It actually isn't that much longer than a 24-105L, though it is unusually thick. It telescopes out as you increase focus length, but there is a switch that will lock it at the 70mm position when you are carrying it around. It fits in the camera bag easily, and is just less of a hassle to carry around, whether on the camera or off. The extra reach is nice to have. Build quality is superb, of course.
The biggest disadvantage of the 70-300L to me is that the position of the zoom and manual focus rings is reversed compared to other zoom lenses. (Maybe there is some engineering reason why they had to do this to get such a wide focal range in such a sort lens?) On this lens, the focus ring is close to the body and the zoom ring is out near the end of the lens. I find this a little awkward, and it takes some getting used to, especially after changing lenses.
The other disadvantage is that it is a "Group E" lens, so although all 61 AF points are available on the 5D mk.III, only the ones in the center are cross-type. But the AF on the 5D mk.III is so good that I haven't had a problem with this lens, even for outdoor sports.
Yes, it would be nice if it were faster than f5.6, but as someone else pointed out, depth of field at long focal lengths gets pretty thin anyway. I think even if I had an f2.8, a lot of times I would stop down to 5.6 or more anyway, just to be able to get, for example, all the players in a group in focus at once.

[Marsu42]

Assuming I needed the extra reach of the 70-300 L I bought one, but must have received a bad copy - sometimes it was no sharper (sometimes it was distinctly less sharp) than my 70-300 non-L IS, so I returned it.

Even with Canon lenses, there are bad copies - look at the iso crops for the 70-300L @the-digital picture, they got another copy because the first one was bad: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 70-300 non-L actually is also ok iq-wise except for the long end, so maybe that's why you didn't see a difference. But of course the L has better is, faster & silent non-micro usm af and much better build quality.

Concerning the 70-200/4: It is certainly a good lens and a tad sharper than the 70-300L while keeping constant aperture - but whenever I see it I find it strangely long for something you also shoot at 70mm. Of course internal zooming is technically superior to the telescope design of the 70-300L, but handling & transport imho is simply better with a shorter lens.