70-300L or 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?

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.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

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 f2.8). 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."

 

[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.