Buying my first white lens: 70-200 f2.8 IS II, 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300 f4-5.6L

[greger]

I own the 70-200 f4 L I bought a 1.4 Extender with it and used that combo from day one. Even at 5.6 I could sharpen
the pics in DPP or PS and be happy with the end result. I bought a 2X Extender because I wanted more reach. Hand held
the images were softer than I liked. Mounted on a tripod and using LIve view and manual focusing produced an image that I could sharpen in PS and print. I was happy with the results. I decided to buy a 100-400 L. It's a Heavy Beast.
I am getting used to the weight and am quite happy with the results. I got a pic of a Black Bear that was eating apples
off a branch that it had broken off the tree. I haven't printed it yet but am sure I will be happy with the final print as the
jpeg that I emailed to friends looks great. I don't go on long walks but if I did it would be with the 70-200 F4 IS USM L with the 1.4 Extender and my 17-85 IS lens. Good Luck in your decision.

 

[fragilesi]

I have the 70-300L. It got a big negative vibe when it came out but I think it's knocked a lot of the doubts aside. Manageable, very capable and a reasonable price.

It's my go to lens as most of what I do is trying to capture nature outside and outdoor sports.

I would love the 70-200 2.8 II for when I'm shooting gigs which I also like.

It really depends on your priority, if it's indoors then the 70-200 probably has your name on it but if nature is really your thing then the additional reach of the 70-300 does make a very compelling argument.

 

[SDFilmFan]

My telephoto zooms have progressed from 55-250, to 70-200 f4 IS (w/ 1.4X extender), to 70-300L, to the legendary 70-200 f2.8 IS II. I still have all three L lenses. And the one I grab when I need a long lens is the 70-300L.

The 70-200 f4 IS is sharp on its own, but degrades with the 1.4X on it. The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is so heavy it is literally a pain for me to carry; and it comes up short focal-length wise now that I've gone full frame; and at f2.8 the depth of field is so thin I can't get things in focus unless I stop down to f5.6 or so.

The 70-300L gives me extra reach, gives me photos that look as good as the 2.8 delivers, gets both eyes of a meerkat in focus wide-open, and I don't have to ice my elbow after an afternoon at the zoo. To boot, while thicker than the 70-200 f4, it is shorter and fits in my holster-type bag with enough room left over for a small flash.

So, if I were going on a photo-opportunity-rich trip where I had to carry all my gear, I'd go with my 5D3, the 24-105, and the 70-300L.

 

[fragilesi]

It's a real shame that neither the 70-200 f4 LIS or 70-300 LIS is supplied with a tripod collar.

No, it is absolutely not a shame. If my 70-300L had come with such a collar it would have cost me 10% for something I would not once have used in the 8 months since I bought it. I'm very happy that Canon have realised that so many users of this lens would not see the value in having one supplied with it.

 

[nvsravank]

For indoor events where you are standing in the audience and want to take pictures, the 2.8 is a shoo in. The focus is fast. the light gathering capacity means it is easier to focus with a better lens. Your view finder is brighter.

Weight is an issue, but i would still recommend it over any other lens.

 

[Loswr]

It's a real shame that neither the 70-200 f4 LIS or 70-300 LIS is supplied with a tripod collar.

No, it is absolutely not a shame. If my 70-300L had come with such a collar it would have cost me 10% for something I would not once have used in the 8 months since I bought it. I'm very happy that Canon have realised that so many users of this lens would not see the value in having one supplied with it.

It wouldn't have added 10%, any more than the lens hoods that sell separately for $30-40 cost even 10% of those retail prices to produce.

Personally, I use the tripod ring on the 70-300L frequently, and I agree that it should have been included.

 

[fragilesi]

It's a real shame that neither the 70-200 f4 LIS or 70-300 LIS is supplied with a tripod collar.

No, it is absolutely not a shame. If my 70-300L had come with such a collar it would have cost me 10% for something I would not once have used in the 8 months since I bought it. I'm very happy that Canon have realised that so many users of this lens would not see the value in having one supplied with it.

It wouldn't have added 10%, any more than the lens hoods that sell separately for $30-40 cost even 10% of those retail prices to produce.

Personally, I use the tripod ring on the 70-300L frequently, and I agree that it should have been included.

It retails for about 10% of what the lens retails for. I don't know how Canon discounts the items it bundles in.

In any case my guess is that a LOT of people who use this lens especially with its relative portability (as demonstrated by this conversation) won't use it with a tripod. Simple as. Why should everyone pay extra, however much it is, just so the rest can get it included?

 

[DominoDude]

The one I bought is the 70-200/4L IS. They way I was reasoning was that it had at least the same resolution as the /2.8L, and with IS I can use almost the same shutter speeds on the /4. I couldn't see enough benefits in shelling out around twice as much for one stop more then. It has served me well both outdoors and indoors.

Side note: For those mentioning the lack of tripod collar on the 70-200/4L IS. I use the tripod collar from my 400/5.6L. It works.

 

[eddiemrg]

Just bought 70-200 L f4 IS and went in a surfcamp: super light for travels!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The one I bought is the 70-200/4L IS. They way I was reasoning was that it had at least the same resolution as the /2.8L, and with IS I can use almost the same shutter speeds on the /4. I couldn't see enough benefits in shelling out around twice as much for one stop more then. It has served me well both outdoors and indoors.

Side note: For those mentioning the lack of tripod collar on the 70-200/4L IS. I use the tripod collar from my 400/5.6L. It works.

The IS on the f4 L IS isn't quite as good as the one found on the f2.8 II version, that said, it's still very capable. The f2.8 has twice the brightness and the same level of IS, so you gain a stop in low level shooting. But it's a heavier and harder lens to handle, so I think that the extra stop is lost due to the size and bulk of the f2.8 version. The f2.8 version can melt backgrounds a little easier but focus accuracy becomes more critical as the depth of field diminishes.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Everyone I've been talking to in different stores have said IS is the "must-have" on any of the lenses. But they probably have a economic incentive to make me shell out more for an IS lens ;-)

For the longer focal lengths, IS is indeed a big help when using a lens hand held. To use a non IS lens you need to crank up your shutter speed. For moving subjects, a high shutter speed is required in any event, but for many of your shots, light may be limited, and if the subject is still or moving slowly, IS is a huge help.

Since you have the 24-105mm IS, the 100-400mm IS complements it perfectly. The three lenses you listed are all excellent, the 70-200mmL's are a little better, but all are excellent.

 

[tron]

The IS on the f4 L IS isn't quite as good as the one found on the f2.8 II version

Says you. Canon says otherwise (that they are equal).
That's the objective part...

that said, it's still very capable. The f2.8 has twice the brightness and the same level of IS, so you gain a stop in low level shooting. But it's a heavier and harder lens to handle, so I think that the extra stop is lost due to the size and bulk of the f2.8 version. The f2.8 version can melt backgrounds a little easier but focus accuracy becomes more critical as the depth of field diminishes.

Now we agree! Since I have both allow me to say regarding the f/4 IS version: its IS combined with the lower weight - as you also say - makes it a killer combination. That's me. Other members find easy to handhold still a heavy lens. That's the subjective part...

 

[Pi]

The IS on the f4 L IS isn't quite as good as the one found on the f2.8 II version

Says you. Canon says otherwise (that they are equal).

In my experience, they are similar, which means highly effective.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The IS on the f4 L IS isn't quite as good as the one found on the f2.8 II version

Says you. Canon says otherwise (that they are equal).

In my experience, they are similar, which means highly effective.

The IS on the mk II 70-200 f2.8 L IS is quieter and visibly smoother in the viewfinder. The unit on the f4 LIS is very effective but it's a fair bit older in design than the newer f2.8 version. There's a number of reviewers who have stated that they found the f4 LIS to be slightly less than 4 stops ability and the f2.8 II LIS to be slightly over. Regardless of outcome, both are very capable units and very capable lenses.

 

[tron]

The IS on the f4 L IS isn't quite as good as the one found on the f2.8 II version

Says you. Canon says otherwise (that they are equal).

In my experience, they are similar, which means highly effective.

The IS on the mk II 70-200 f2.8 L IS is quieter and visibly smoother in the viewfinder. The unit on the f4 LIS is very effective but it's a fair bit older in design than the newer f2.8 version. There's a number of reviewers who have stated that they found the f4 LIS to be slightly less than 4 stops ability and the f2.8 II LIS to be slightly over. Regardless of outcome, both are very capable units and very capable lenses.

The IS on the mk II 70-200 f2.8 L IS is indeed much quieter. However, my f/4 L IS seems 4 stops effective while my f/2.8L IS II seems ... 1 stop effective! True this is my subjective view due mainly to lens weight but the end result is the same for me.

 

[ablearcher]

As the OP mentioned events, I'd say 70-200mm f2.8L IS II is the best bet. The lens is heavy but if you can manage it - this will be as good as it gets in this range. I was fine with 70-200 4.0 IS until i got into events (weddings).

 

[tron]

To tell the truth if I had none of the 3 I would be very confused...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It's a real shame that neither the 70-200 f4 LIS or 70-300 LIS is supplied with a tripod collar.

No, it is absolutely not a shame. If my 70-300L had come with such a collar it would have cost me 10% for something I would not once have used in the 8 months since I bought it. I'm very happy that Canon have realised that so many users of this lens would not see the value in having one supplied with it.

It wouldn't have added 10%, any more than the lens hoods that sell separately for $30-40 cost even 10% of those retail prices to produce.

Personally, I use the tripod ring on the 70-300L frequently, and I agree that it should have been included.

It retails for about 10% of what the lens retails for. I don't know how Canon discounts the items it bundles in.

In any case my guess is that a LOT of people who use this lens especially with its relative portability (as demonstrated by this conversation) won't use it with a tripod. Simple as. Why should everyone pay extra, however much it is, just so the rest can get it included?

The irony is that there are more landscape users of the 70-200 f4 LIS and 70-300L than the 70-200 f2.8 II LIS. Many prefer the lighter weight for a lighter bag and rarely need the extra stop of brightness. Most landscapers are keen to shoot in the f8-f11 range for DOF and maximum sharpness. Here's the irony, neither of those lens comes bundled with a tripod collar. Where as the fast f2.8 version comes with one as standard, but rarely gets used by anyone.

 

[Loswr]

Here's the irony, neither of those lens comes bundled with a tripod collar. Where as the fast f2.8 version comes with one as standard, but rarely gets used by anyone.

I use the tripod collar on my 70-200 II all the time....just not for mounting on a tripod. Much better balance when carrying the lens on a Blackrapid strap.

 

[M.ST]

If you only can afford one lens, get the 70-200 f2.8 IS II. With f/2.8 it´s more versatile.