70-300mm F/4-5.6L IS or 70-200mm F2.8 VC?

[abcde12345]

Hello, straight to the point, having a 6D, wondering which telephoto to get now. Would the 70-300mm's extra reach matter a lot, or 70-200mm's larger aperture matter more? How does it compare in real life? How does the speed compare and real life issues? Is the difference in aperture going to matter in normal daily life usage? Thanks everyone!

P.S. please don't send me the link to Dustin's review. I've read it so much I think I can memorize it backwards. =/

 

[Deleted member 42026]

That's kinda tricky to answer. Both are quite different lenses. One one hand you have a good pro 70-200, on the other you have a good compact quite long zoom also with fantastic IQ. So do you need that 100mm? The 70-300L also does an ok attempt at macro too (yes I said attempt, but it's good if you have no other choice).

Your 6D has great noise control at very high ISO, the slower 70-300L may not hinder you much. And let me assure you the IS in the canon is strong (as in very good). If you really want the f2.8 to blur background more though, the 70-300L is not so great. You can get good blur from f4 at 70mm though if your not far from your subject though. Same for f5.6 depending on distance too, never as great but acceptable.

You need to work out what is more versatile to you. The 70-300L will be more compact in a bag too if that matters.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

What kind of photography you want to do with this lens? Whereas both 70-300L and 70-200VC has high quality and similar price, only you can answer whether it is worth the coverage until 300mm, and having to forgo F2.8 aperture. As a general rule, lowlight 70-200 F2.8 is the best choice, but it is heavy and bulky. If you can rent before you buy, decide the safest way.

 

[eml58]

I have both, have used both extensively, but over time relegated the 70-300 to my Son's use, reasons ??

The 70-300 f/4-5.6 L is a relatively slow lens @ f/4 to f/5.6, not an issue if your in sunny weather, bright conditions, otherwise your constantly looking at cranking the Cameras ISO up. I shoot wildlife, mostly early mooring and late afternoon, it's not that the 70-300 won't work in these conditions, it does, and quite well, but no where as well as the 70-200 with the availability of f2.8.

The 7-300 has a reasonably good range, but note that it will not accept Canon 1.4x or 2x converters, I have read of some people using Kenko 1.4x converters with mixed results.

The advantages of the 70-300 are quite good IQ, light, quite a good range, reasonable price.

the 70-200f/2.8 II L is a bit of a different Lens, if your wanting to do Portraits, other than a more suitable prime, this Lens will work very well for you, have a look at "Bornshooters" portraits on the 1Dx thread, majority I think shot with this Lens. Wildlife with the 1.4x Converter, amazing IQ, with the 2x converter, still very good IQ.

In this range there are few if any Lenses that compare for IQ & versatility.

Only disadvantage that I can think of over the 70-300 would be, more expensive by a large margin, weight. But versatility, IQ can't be beaten I feel.

Another option for you might be to wait if you have the patience until Canon release their new 100-400 f/4-f/5.6, this I imagine will be a Lens worth the money, hopefully, but it could be a 6 month to a year wait going on Canon's past performance of hint re development, declare production started, offer to the Market, on the 200-400f/4 that was about 3 years.

 

[mwh1964]

I have both. They are very different though and for different purposes. The 70-300L is a super general telephoto lens. Very much recommendable. The 70-200 has f2.8 and is much heavier and clumsy. If weight matters you will be happy with the 70-300. If f2.8 and best possible IQ matters then 70-200 us your choice.

 

[wickidwombat]

from all the reviews of the new 70-200 2.8 VC i would say go that route (forget any old tamron though)
by all accounts the new one is pretty damn good

 

[abcde12345]

Seems like everyone's pro Tamron's 70-200mm F2.8 VC. Is this a testament to the IQ of Tamron? How would the zoom fare in comparison? Is the motor comparable to Canon's USM? F2.8 is really a big lure, bokehlicious and everything. How sharp is it in comparison to Canon's 70-300mm? Both lenses are priced rather closely as mentioned, so it really boils down to how versatile and useful it is in normal daily life (travelling, events, gatherings and stuff like that: read mundane. No wildlife, but sports might be used a bit.) On a side note, is 6D and a 70-xxxmm a good combo for sports?

 

[Dylan777]

24-70 II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II = must have lenses for Canon shooters

I would ignore what others say about 6D has better high ISO & no need fast lens.

 

[gshocked]

24-70 II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II = must have lenses for Canon shooters

I would ignore what others say about 6D has better high ISO & no need fast lens.

+1

These two lenses are amazing!

Can I just ask are you comparing a Canon 70-300 4-5.6L and a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 or a canon 70-200 f2.8L is II?

The Canon 70-300 definite get a tick of the reach and the overall cost. However, if you want the best 70-200 f2.8 lens, I would save some extra money and get the Canon. The Canon 70-200 f2.8L is an amazing lens. It's very sharp across the zoom and super accurate. It's also weather sealed, which the Tamron ain't.

Check this video out - there are a few in this series:

http://youtu.be/kAAeoB1F7nI

 

[abcde12345]

Referring to Tamron's. Canon's 70-200mm is twice the price of Tamron's, hence the reluctance to get it. How would USD hold up to USM? Is it as quick and silent? Is the image quality worth twice the price? Seems like aperture is going to be the major issue here for 70-300mm.

 

[abcde12345]

I've watched that video too, and it gives quite a lot of respect to Tamron, hence the confusion.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I've watched that video too, and it gives quite a lot of respect to Tamron, hence the confusion.

I'd say get the 70-300L and give it a go. I love my 70-200 but I also have to leave it behind often due to the weight. For me it's still worth it. But for many the 70-300 is perfectly acceptable.
The reason I suggest trying this one first is the resale value. If you want to switch to the 70-200 you'd be able to sell the Canon with little loss, but not the other way around.
By the way, some of the pro-2.8 posts have been written with the Canon v2 in mind IMO. The Tamron is close, but not the same thing.

 

[Random Orbits]

Seems like everyone's pro Tamron's 70-200mm F2.8 VC. Is this a testament to the IQ of Tamron? How would the zoom fare in comparison? Is the motor comparable to Canon's USM? F2.8 is really a big lure, bokehlicious and everything. How sharp is it in comparison to Canon's 70-300mm? Both lenses are priced rather closely as mentioned, so it really boils down to how versatile and useful it is in normal daily life (travelling, events, gatherings and stuff like that: read mundane. No wildlife, but sports might be used a bit.) On a side note, is 6D and a 70-xxxmm a good combo for sports?

I think a lot of people are giving their experience with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and not the Tamron's.

The reviews I've seen on the Tamron is that it is a good value relative to Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. It's not quite as good as Canon's, but it's price is major asset. The 70-300L is a fine lens. It is as good if not slightly better than the Canon 70-200 II with an 1.4x III near 300mm, and that is saying a lot.

I think a major factor for you is whether or not you have or intend to buy a high speed telephoto in the future (i.e. 135L). The 70-300L is great if you're outside and have enough light, but it's not fast enough for indoor settings. Something like the 135L will complement it nicely for indoor work and portraiture. If not, then a 70-200 f/2.8 may be a better choice.

 

[gshocked]

Seems like everyone's pro Tamron's 70-200mm F2.8 VC. Is this a testament to the IQ of Tamron? How would the zoom fare in comparison? Is the motor comparable to Canon's USM? F2.8 is really a big lure, bokehlicious and everything. How sharp is it in comparison to Canon's 70-300mm? Both lenses are priced rather closely as mentioned, so it really boils down to how versatile and useful it is in normal daily life (travelling, events, gatherings and stuff like that: read mundane. No wildlife, but sports might be used a bit.) On a side note, is 6D and a 70-xxxmm a good combo for sports?

I think a lot of people are giving their experience with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and not the Tamron's.

The reviews I've seen on the Tamron is that it is a good value relative to Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. It's not quite as good as Canon's, but it's price is major asset. The 70-300L is a fine lens. It is as good if not slightly better than the Canon 70-200 II with an 1.4x III near 300mm, and that is saying a lot.

I think a major factor for you is whether or not you have or intend to buy a high speed telephoto in the future (i.e. 135L). The 70-300L is great if you're outside and have enough light, but it's not fast enough for indoor settings. Something like the 135L will complement it nicely for indoor work and portraiture. If not, then a 70-200 f/2.8 may be a better choice.

+ 1

Just a few questions that might help you make your decision.

1. What do you intend to use the zoom lens for ?
- outdoor sports: then the 70-300 is fine, if it's a sunny day you will have enough light.
- indoor sports/events: the faster aperture will be an advantage.

2. Do you care about the Lens speed accuracy & isolation/bokeh factor?
I've used only the Canon 70-200 f2.8L is II and I can vouch that this is a top lens and ticks all the above criteria.
Looking at the video imposter before the Tamron lens speed is a tad slower than Canon.
An f2.8 lens shot at its wides aperture will give you fantastic isolation. The 70-300 will do this naturally due at 300mm due to how the lens compresses things at the telephoto end but the bokeh isn't as good as the 70-200 f2.8
I believe this makes a huge difference in the aesthetic quality of an image.

Watch this review on the canon 70-300
http://youtu.be/3iNY4WQ_-4w

3. How important do rate Image Quality?
If you can justify the cost, the Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II is a winner. I know the cost of this lens is a major issue but if you get the Tamron, your half way there. The IQ on the 70-300 I can't fault and from what I've read is on par with Tamron.

4. Do you make money off your images?
This is related to question 1 as they can go hand in hand.
When I first looked at 70-200 lenses I was just going to go for the Canon 70-200 f4L IS. This lens is $1000 cheaper than the f2.8 IS II and would probably done the job. However, since I do events and weddings on the side, I wanted a versatile lens that lived up to any situation I may encounter. Therefore for my use and knowing I'd make the money back in the lens life time, it had to be the 70-200 f2.8L is II.

There are probably more purchase related questions but here were my few leading to my decision.

Ultimately if your budget will be the ultimate deciding factor... Although if your been dreaming to get the best 2.8 lens then there's no other choice. At the end of the day as long as your happy with your purchase.

 

[JumboShrimp]

For what it's worth, I took my new 70-300L IS to the Singapore zoo and paired it (most of the time) with a Kenko 1.4x TC. I was surprised by just how good the images were, even with most of them being shot wide-open. Attached cropped pix is one example.

 

[gshocked]

For what it's worth, I took my new 70-300L IS to the Singapore zoo and paired it (most of the time) with a Kenko 1.4x TC. I was surprised by just how good the images were, even with most of them being shot wide-open. Attached cropped pix is one example.

Great pic!

 

[abcde12345]

Good point. One issue: no I'm not earning money out of it, and it means I will not get a single cent out of it too. Seems like most of you guys are pro-aperture in here then. I understand most people stated that Canon's speed is good, but does the Tamron lag behind much? How big is the difference? Seems like you guys are saying the speed is worth twice the price? It will be used mainly indoors I believe, hence it seems like I'm more of going for the Tamron for now. Definitely will use it outdoors at times, but the fact that I'm a hobbyist means that there's a good chunk of it being indoors.

 

[Random Orbits]

Good point. One issue: no I'm not earning money out of it, and it means I will not get a single cent out of it too. Seems like most of you guys are pro-aperture in here then. I understand most people stated that Canon's speed is good, but does the Tamron lag behind much? How big is the difference? Seems like you guys are saying the speed is worth twice the price? It will be used mainly indoors I believe, hence it seems like I'm more of going for the Tamron for now. Definitely will use it outdoors at times, but the fact that I'm a hobbyist means that there's a good chunk of it being indoors.

I think you know what your choice will be: Tamron. Stick with your budget, and you'll sleep better. There is no point in extending yourself financially for a hobby, but before you buy, drop by a store and try both. See if the Tamron satisfies your requirements, and if the price difference is worth saving the extra funds.

 

[gshocked]

Good point. One issue: no I'm not earning money out of it, and it means I will not get a single cent out of it too. Seems like most of you guys are pro-aperture in here then. I understand most people stated that Canon's speed is good, but does the Tamron lag behind much? How big is the difference? Seems like you guys are saying the speed is worth twice the price? It will be used mainly indoors I believe, hence it seems like I'm more of going for the Tamron for now. Definitely will use it outdoors at times, but the fact that I'm a hobbyist means that there's a good chunk of it being indoors.

I think you know what your choice will be: Tamron. Stick with your budget, and you'll sleep better. There is no point in extending yourself financially for a hobby, but before you buy, drop by a store and try both. See if the Tamron satisfies your requirements, and if the price difference is worth saving the extra funds.

+1 Well said!

The Tamron will do your photography justice. Plus matched with you 6D - with its -3EV sensitivity rating on the centre cross point will be an amazing combo. I agree with trying both. If you can go one further and find a place that you can rent either one, I think would certainly help your decision. In regards to the focus speed, the reality is - at times its like splitting hairs, its close but negligible. BUT to some photographers they would said its worlds apart and reviews will go either way.

Check this review out on the Tamron. It does mention that Tamron has the edge over the Sigma 70-200.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-70-200mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[abcde12345]

Yup, definitely saw that most reviews placed Tamron right behind Canon and Nikon but before Sigma. Nothing to offend Sigma (since I definitely am waiting for the 24-70mm F2, if it's coming out! Breaking my piggy bank for that!), but Tamron will be the better choice. Canon was on the mind but the price is twice of it. I just want to know how much that gulf between USM and USD would cost me, and seems like you guys are telling me it doesn't justify it. In fact most would say that the IQ of Tamron is equally good, which is almost surprising!