70-200 F2.8L IS Mk1 or 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS

[meinthai]

Hi guys

I wondered if could delve into your lens experience to get some buying advice.

I'm looking at buying a telephoto zoom and for my budget fell in love with the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. But I now see that it's possible to get a second hand EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Mk1 for a similar price.

I don't have a clear idea of one area where it will be used, some exterior and some interior/night, maybe some outside sport.

If you ignore the extra 100mm focal length of the new lens then it's between

70-300
-new IS
-new lens technology

70-200
-fixed aperture
-F 2.8

so is the now nearly 10 year old technology of the 70-200 better than the 70-300? they both have a reputation for great image quality, but does any one know how the two compare? Is the Boke that much better with 70-200?

Hope you guys can offer some insight on my little conundrum.

Thanks

 

[Loswr]

The 70-300mm is sharper and has a better IS system. Actually, the original 70-200mm f/2.8L IS was not known for it's great IQ (the non-IS version is better, as is the 70-200mm f/4L IS) - that was probably one main reason why Canon came out with the MkII version of the lens (which is excellent, BTW, but costly).

I'm not sure you can 'ignore the extra 100mm focal length' - if you need that extra 100mm, the 70-300mm is the better choice. OTOH, if you'll be shooting indoors with ambient light, f/2.8 is much, much better.

As for how they compare, here's a comparison at 200mm f/5.6 (you can adjust focal lengths and apertures) - the 70-200 is sharper away from the center, but the 70-300mm offers better contrast (new coatings). Be sure to check out the f/2.8 performance of the 70-200, since the main reason to get that lens is for the f/2.8.

 

[dr croubie]

70-300L owner and loving it...

besides the 'main use' comparison (ie, wide open at f/2.8 for faster shots in lower light vs the extra 100mm for extra reach), think about: (from here
70-300L is 1050g, 70-200 2.8v1 is 1470. (that's nearly 50% more weight)
70-200 comes new with a free tripod ring (does your 2nd hand one? it will add even more weight though, to 1670g)
70-300 is 15cm long (20cm zoomed in), 70-200 is 20cm long all the time (does it fit in your bag or will you need a new one?)
70-300 takes 67mm filters (cheaper), 70-200 takes 77mm (or do you already own one size?)
70-300 focusses closer, better MM (70-200 has better MM with 25mm tubes though).

and 70-200 f2.8 will focus on any body with 1.4x or 2x extenders (to 280mm f4 and 400mm f5.6), do you own either already? 70-300 won't fit either canon-brand extender without smashing glass. apparently some of the Kenkos fit, which i intend to buy one day, but then they lose waterproofing ability.

the 70-200 f2.8v1 plus 1.4x TCv2 (f4 and f5.6@280mm) looks a lot softer than the 70-300 (f5.6@300mm) here

i took a lot of time deciding between the 70-300L and the 70-200 f4 IS, the 300 won just the tiny bit better IQ, lots more contrast, and the extra cost (and hassle) of extenders (i really did want the extra reach). so convenience is also a factor if you are going to want more than 200mm, even occasionally...

 

[Admin US West]

Hi guys

I wondered if could delve into your lens experience to get some buying advice.

I'm looking at buying a telephoto zoom and for my budget fell in love with the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. But I now see that it's possible to get a second hand EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Mk1 for a similar price.

I don't have a clear idea of one area where it will be used, some exterior and some interior/night, maybe some outside sport.

If you ignore the extra 100mm focal length of the new lens then it's between

70-300
-new IS
-new lens technology

70-200
-fixed aperture
-F 2.8

so is the now nearly 10 year old technology of the 70-200 better than the 70-300? they both have a reputation for great image quality, but does any one know how the two compare? Is the Boke that much better with 70-200?

Hope you guys can offer some insight on my little conundrum.

Thanks

With the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, you are paying for f/2.8. Thats a huge difference over f/5.6. You must also pack a quite heavy lens, which can be a drag if you are not used to it, it really balances pretty well on a 1 series body, but on a rebel, its very unbalanced.

I had 4 of them over the years, always hoping to find a really excellent one, but while they are good, they are weak at f/2.8 and 200mm. I settled for a 70-200mm f/4 IS, its sharp end to end wide open.

I've not used the new 70-300mmL, but if you need 300mm, I'd also look at the 100-400mm L, mine is excellent.

 

[EYEONE]

I would recommend the 70-200 over the 300mm any day of the week. The constant f2.8 is where the money goes, but it's totally worth it.

I guess if you absolutely need the reach and nothing else matters the 300mm might fit your needs better.

But as you don't know how it will be used I'd be willing to bet you'd be more happy with the 200mm at f2.8 than 300mm at f5.6.

Subject isolation is a beautiful thing.

 

[V8Beast]

As always, it depends what you're using it for. I recently sold my 70-200 f/4 for a 70-300L. It has hard to part with the 70-200 f/4, which I think is the best bang-for-the-buck L-series lens in existence. However, I needed the extra reach and a good IS system. Low-light performance wasn't really a huge consideration, so for my needs, the 70-300 was a better option. Compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 MKI lens I used way back when, the Gen II IS system on the 70-300 blows it away.

Image quality wise, I'm sure lab tests might say otherwise, but I can't distinguish a difference in the field between the 70-200 f/2.8 MK1, and the 70-300L. Both of these lenses are big, heavy beasts, however, so unless you really need the extra reach and the extra stop, I'd go with either the 70-200 f/4 or the 70-200 f/4 IS.

 

[Cornershot]

Sorry, I'm striking my other comments because I didn't realize this discussion was about the new 70-300L. I wondered why everybody was raving about the consumer 70-300 non L. It's just an okay lens. I've seen other photogs with the 70-300L and thought it produced really nice output. On par with other L lenses. I still think you'll miss those two stops, though. Wonder how much bigger the 70-300mm would be if made into a straight f4 throughout the range.

 

[dr croubie]

Sorry, I'm striking my other comments because I didn't realize this discussion was about the new 70-300L. I wondered why everybody was raving about the consumer 70-300 non L. It's just an okay lens. I've seen other photogs with the 70-300L and thought it produced really nice output. On par with other L lenses. I still think you'll miss those two stops, though. Wonder how much bigger the 70-300mm would be if made into a straight f4 throughout the range.

yeah, i owned the 70-300 nonL, took me 6 months to get sick of it (or 2 months to get sick of it, 6 months to convince my sis to buy it) then bought the 70-300L. it's just plain amazing IQ compared, i reckon the IS is better too. (i've got a few images uploaded in the image gallery if anyone's interested).

a 70-300L f4 (even 100-300 f4 to pair with the 24-105 f4?) would be amazing, but probably bigger than the 70-200 f2.8 IS ii and at least as expensive.


i've never had a fast lens bar the niftyfifty, a 90mm f2.8 and a 250mm f3.5 soviet Medium Format lenses (both kinda softish open), so i can't really comment on how much better an f/2.8 200 does for a nice blurry background compared to a bit slower though...

 

[Loswr]

i can't really comment on how much better an f/2.8 200 does for a nice blurry background compared to a bit slower though...

Better - by two f/stops. Basically, it all comes down to aperture. An f/2.8 lens will deliver more OOF blur than an f/5.6 lens. Yes, there are other factors that affect DoF, but they cancel each other out (e.g. a longer focal length gives you more DoF, but to get the same framing as the shorter lens you must be further away from the subject, and that gives you less DoF in exact proportion to the increasing focal length).

My EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II works very well as a portrait lens.

 

[dr croubie]

Better - by two f/stops. Basically, it all comes down to aperture. An f/2.8 lens will deliver more OOF blur than an f/5.6 lens. Yes, there are other factors that affect DoF, but they cancel each other out (e.g. a longer focal length gives you more DoF, but to get the same framing as the shorter lens you must be further away from the subject, and that gives you less DoF in exact proportion to the increasing focal length).

My EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II works very well as a portrait lens.

Well yeah, i know faster = more oof blur, i just meant i've never had any first-hand experience between the two.

it's just easier finding a good background sometimes. anyway, i've put a few more pics in the 70-300L lens gallery, shows a nice background even for the slowness...

 

[Loswr]

i've put a few more pics in the 70-300L lens gallery, shows a nice background even for the slowness...

Sure, you can get nice background blur with almost any lens under the right circumstances. With a long, slow lens, if you have a small, relatively close subject, that works. Bugs in your case, or for example, a bird with the 100-400mm:


EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 200

Nice and smooth... The trick is when you have a larger subject, and a closer (and/or busier) background. I can take a headshot of someone sitting on a couch with my 85mm f/1.2L II, and blur out the fabric of the couch just behind the subjects head (although I might need to shoot at f/1.4 or f/1.6 just to get both eyes in focus, depending on head angle).

For more relevance, here's a shot at 200mm f/2.8 with a close, busy background:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM @ 70mm, 1/640 s, f/2.8, ISO 100

 

[bycostello]

horses for courses.. what kind of photographer are you?

wildlife, then the extra focal lenth is a must, wedding photographer then the f2.8 is more important.

 

[Flake]

Yet again a question without the OP saying what the camera is! Making the advice given speculative at best! You ask about the Bokeh difference on a 2.8 lens, but what about the Bokeh difference on a FF and crop frame camera?

Assuming you have a crop frame camera I'd advise you take a look at Sigmas 70 - 200mm OS f/2.8 which has superb centre performance, possibly better than the Canon MkII version, alas on FF it cannot hold that performance to the borders and corners like the Canon can. Not a cheap lens, it's still within your budget and a 1.4x TC too to take you to 300mm f/4. You might also consider the Sigma 100 - 300mm f/4 which is a super sharp lens gains a stop over the Canon but lacks OS.

Despite the opinions of the owners here the 70 - 300mm L did not review quite so well at Photozone, and to be honest technique will make more of a difference than the quailty of the lenses you use. I've just seen one photographer upset at the lack of detail in his favourite image, despite using a tripod, - the reason was diffraction at f/22. It doesn't matter how good your kit is, if you don't learn how to use it properly it'll never give you its best results.

 

[meinthai]

Thanks All for your valuable advice.

RE:Flake. I'm using it with 5D Mk1 at the moment, with plans to upgrade to the Mk3 when ever that comes out.

It seems like it's going to be a tough choice. The more I think about it the more the 70-200 sounds better, but it seems it's not that great a lens IQ wise. I'm going to see if I can sell some things to raise some extra money for the Mk 2 version.

Thanks again for your time guys

 

[bycostello]

The more I think about it the more the 70-200 sounds better, but it seems it's not that great a lens IQ wise.

not sure where u get that from, it is Canon's best ever selling lens... i have one and is lens of choice majority of the time

 

[meinthai]

The more I think about it the more the 70-200 sounds better, but it seems it's not that great a lens IQ wise.

not sure where u get that from, it is Canon's best ever selling lens... i have one and is lens of choice majority of the time

Maybe I was a bit to general with that statement. The IQ of the original 70-200 doesn't seem to be as good as the new 70-300. the 70-300 seems sharper at the corners at f4 and sharper all around by f8.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

And the new 70-200 really does seem to be so much better IQ wise, so there is clearly some thinking for me to do before making my decision.

 

[Loswr]

The more I think about it the more the 70-200 sounds better, but it seems it's not that great a lens IQ wise.

not sure where u get that from, it is Canon's best ever selling lens... i have one and is lens of choice majority of the time

Well, no, it's no where near Canon's best-selling lens. That's probably the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, followed by other flavors of that lens, followed by the 50/1.8 II, then probably the 28-135mm. I really doubt there's an L-series lens even in Canon's top-5 historical bestsellers, and probably only one in the top-10 (and that's probably the 24-105mm, because of the sales volume of 5DII kits).

Saying, "[the 70-200 2.8 IS] is not that great a lens IQ wise," is like saying a Porsche 911 is not fast. Granted, it's not a 911 GT2 RS with over 600 hp...but it's still a Porsche. Debating the IQ of the lenses you're considering is somewhat moot - yes, you can see differences in ISO 12233 charts and MTF50 measurements (which would rank the 70-300 L slightly above the 70-200 IS MkI), but in real-world shooting and viewing/printing, you likely would not notice much of a difference in straight IQ.

Basically, it boils down to aperture vs. focal length (do you need f/2.8 or the extra 100mm), with secondary considerations like size/weight, IS system performance, etc. If you don't need f/2.8, I'd go with the 70-300mm L. If you need to stop action in low light, then the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is a better choice.

 

[simplexityphoto]

ok well heres my take. I have owned and sold my 70-200 2.8 l mk1. I had nothing to do with the quality of the lens or any other "flaw" that it had. To be hoenst it was a wonderful lens, that I just never used. I honestly need a longer lens than 200mm but i also still need the 70mm. I have more than once considered buying the new 70-300L because it would give me the reach that i need. now that being said I can say that the new IS system is just plain silly how well it works. You pretty much have to try to make that lens shake with it on (seriously!). also that being said it is optically slightly better than the 70-200 2.8l and it DOES show in the photos.

if you have not tried either you need to before you buy one. these are some tanks of lenses you are looking at here. they are not fun to carry all day and hike with and i'm no weakling.

so now ask yourself honestly is the f-2.8 or the extra 100mm's more important to you? your answer will tell you which one to buy.

 

[dr croubie]

...the new IS system is just plain silly how well it works...

i'll second that.
i just spent 18 hours in Singapore's Changi Airport between flights, between the orchid gardens and the butterfly house i filled an 8GB CF card and then some.
lighting wasn't that good, trying to keep ISO as low as possible, i was handholding the 70-300L at 300mm f/5.6 1/15s exposures with the IS on and getting a decent keeper-rate (and that's with the lack of sleep and coffee inbuilt). some i got sharp on a 1/5s to 1/10s, but not a good keeper rate...