Why would you get this lens?

[Kevmeister!]

let's assume you have non of these or any equivalent lenses. He will give you one, but only if you give him the reason why, which one would you choose?

(Sorry got a little bored trying to make this question interesting , basically which one would you choose if you would not look at the price and not asking me what I shoot the most, just tell which one would be more handy in what situation)

 

[Ewinter]

70-200. Fast, accurate, razor sharp and enables the super sensitive 2.8 dual cross types to be used on any high end body. Also, lovely bokeh

 

[Rockets95]

I'll take the 70-200 f/2.8 II, then I can get to 280mm or 400mm with Canon extenders. You can't do that with the 70-300mm.

 

[Menace]

70-200 2.8 II

Fortunately I already have this lens - its fast AF, larger constant aperture and amazing IQ keeps it on my camera most of the time.

Cheers

 

[2n10]

70-200 for pretty much the same reasons as everyone else.

 

[RLPhoto]

70-300mm is a lens I would have no use for, nor desire to have one.

 

[Kevmeister!]

Sweet, thanks everyone!! now to find that genie

 

[daveheinzel]

How come the 10-400 1.4L IS pancake isn't on the list? I'll take two.

 

[Drizzt321]

70-200. Fast, accurate, razor sharp and enables the super sensitive 2.8 dual cross types to be used on any high end body. Also, lovely bokeh

Pretty much this, plus f/2.8 is very nice in the dark alley's where I like to shoot...errr...photograph stuff

 

[Loswr]

Bad genie, that's a bad g'damn genie!! First, you have to assess the victim's lamp polisher's needs. He may want the Ferrari, but if he has to haul his boat (that was going to be the second wish) over the dirt road to the lake, he needs the Land Rover.

The 70-200 II is a great general purpose zoom, excellent for portraits, sports, etc. Perhaps less good as a travel lens. Also consider...do you need the extra 100mm?

What body? Personally, I found the 70-200 II to be an awkward focal length on APS-C - too long indoors, often not long enough outside. On APS-C, the 70-300 L may be better for the reach. On FF, 70-200 is a great range.

One mor thing...if the genie can deliver the 70-200 II, he could also deliver the 70-300 L and $750 for something else...17-40L, 50/1.4 + 85/1.8, 600EX-RT, etc.

 

[viggen61]

Everything published about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II is peppered with superlatives. It may well be the best lens in the class. Add to that the availability of up to a 70-400 mm range, using the Canon III series extenders that the 70-300 cannot use, and it just can't be beat.

Sure, that's $3,500 in white Canon optics, but if the genie was giving me the lens...

 

[Videoshooter]

70-200L IS II.

I can use extenders to go longer if needed.

 

[Drizzt321]

Bad genie, that's a bad g'damn genie!! First, you have to assess the victim's lamp polisher's needs. He may want the Ferrari, but if he has to haul his boat (that was going to be the second wish) over the dirt road to the lake, he needs the Land Rover.

The 70-200 II is a great general purpose zoom, excellent for portraits, sports, etc. Perhaps less good as a travel lens. Also consider...do you need the extra 100mm?

What body? Personally, I found the 70-200 II to be an awkward focal length on APS-C - too long indoors, often not long enough outside. On APS-C, the 70-300 L may be better for the reach. On FF, 70-200 is a great range.

One mor thing...if the genie can deliver the 70-200 II, he could also deliver the 70-300 L and $750 for something else...17-40L, 50/1.4 + 85/1.8, 600EX-RT, etc.

The problem, in my opinion, is that said genie wasn't offering the 200L f/2.0 instead. Leaving aside the price, I suspect I'd go with that over even the 70-200L IS II, even though the 70-200 is a much better general purpose. There's just something about [email protected] (like the [email protected]) that I'm really wanting badly.

 

[iaind]

Another vote for 70-200 as it takes extenders

 

[charlesa]

Forgive me, but this one is a no-brainer!

 

[Dylan777]

The only pro on 70-300 has is lenght, otherwise the 70-200 f2.8 IS II is a better lens in over all. Fast AF, sharp end to end, and it's f2.8.

Just like 24-105 Vs 24-70 II = I'll take 24-70 II, so don't ask same question

 

[crasher8]

I dream of Ginie with the L Red ring

A Ginie showed up at my house but it wasn't a magic Ginie. She just wanted to sell me a subscription to N-Photo.

 

[FTb-n]

I have the 70-200 f2.8L II and the 70-300 f4-5.6 non-L. The 70-200 is my most used lens (on a 7D), largely because it's sharp at f2.8 and I often shoot wide open.

The 70-300 is retired now, saving it for the kids to use. Now, there's a big difference between the L and non-L version of this lens, but I'll trade the extra 100mm for the speed and bokeh of the 70-200 at 2.8. It's liberating not be limited to f4-5.6.

 

[UrbanImages]

Owning both of these lenses makes it a tough call. My 70-300L is a great copy; sharp end to end but does lack the speed. I would go with the 70-200L II.

 

[Zv]

I'm sure some people would find the 70-300 (2 votes so far someone loves it!!) useful but when asked to choose between these it's not even a fair fight! The 70-200 is KING!!