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

[dw2013]

I have the 70-200 F4 IS, and was considering upgrading to the F2.8 II version. The image quality I have on the F4 is excellent, and with what i shoot, at this stage I don't think I would really notice too much difference for the additional price. I would rather put the money into other equipment/glass, such as the 17-40 L, or even upgrading from the 24-105 L to the 24-70 2.8 II.

Everyone has different needs or requirements from their equipment, and not everyone has money to burn - so you need to think about what your priorities are, whether you have the cash to spare, and what your want or need really is.

 

[ykn123]

Hello Jan
Well - i have no final advise for you but I own 6 bodies and about 15 lenses at the moment including the 70-200 f4 IS, the 70-200 f2.8 II IS , the 135 f2 and the 200 f2.8 II L (I'm a bid paranoid about changing lenses too often due to dust etc. - but on the other side i make my living from that - so this is a different situation)

Both the 70-200 lenses you are considering are great. For traveling , people etc. the 70-200 f4 is a great lens. It has great IQ and is not heavy - as mentioned before - a great deal for the money.
I always have my body/lens combinaton send in to CPS for adjusting AF and lens on body for perfect IQ. I'm still blown away by the IQ of the 5DM2/70-200 f4 combo!
I think on your 6D ( i do not own a 6D) it would be also perfect.

However, you mentioned event and pets - both needs great low light capabilities or fast speed so to speek. Which would be an argument for the 2.8 lens or honestly for even faster speed (like the 135L 2.0)
As i said i do not own a 6D and can't comment on it's capabilities to track fast moving subjects like small pets. It is certainly less capable than a 1D or 7D in terms of FPS and AI Servo AF. But i guess it is fast enough for this under good conditions.

If you work under low light /long exposure times (shutter speed) conditions, then IS helps a lot - especially if you (like i) suffer from a little tremor and if the subjects are not moving (a lot).
If you need to freeze quickly moving subjects like pets, you are in the range of 1/1000 or less shutter speeds and IS is of no benefit then. In that case the 200 2.8 II (prime) or 135L (prime) are great options.
Both are excellent in terms of IQ, weight and price.

Low light situations (e.g. in a church) should be handled fine with your 6D (high ISO), the 24-105 with IS or the 24-105 on a tripod without enabling IS. The 135L is not a lot extra reach for you but f2 is a lot more light. The 200 f2.8 (prime) is more reach and is one stop faster with it's f2.8 over the 24-105 f4. It's also way cheaper but that is not your concern as far as i understand. It is however not as heavy as the 70-200 f2.8 - which seems to be an argument for you.

So what this all means to you ? Honestly, i use my 135L and 200 f2.8II L very little since i own the 70-200 f2.8 II. The 70-200 f2.8 II is just sooo good and for me the zoom is very comfortable. I still recognize that the 135L is my best lens in terms of IQ, bokeh and wide open. Also, i can almost guarantee you that if you purchase the 70-200 f4 (which is a great lens !!!), you will shorty after that start wondering whether you shall buy the 2.8 as well or as a replacement. I think overall this is a +1 for 70-200 f2.8 II ?! and maybe a low light lens like the 50 f1.4 for churches etc.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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

It depends if you equate versatility with that one extra stop of brightness or you equate versatility with light weight, more portablity an less observable intrusion. I found that I used the f4 version more than the f2.8...but the f2.8 came in usefull when I needed it. So the f4 got used more often...that equates to "more versatile" in my book.

 

[BrandonKing96]

My first one. I got a 70-200 f/4L IS. Honestly it's great quality. There's seldom a situation where I'd need f/2.8 but I'd use my 24-70 for that (in my situations, though).
And I don't have a problem with the 70-200 f/4 not having a tripod ring doesn't bother me one bit because the f/4L IS is lighter than my 24-70 f/2.8L II. but I think the 70-300 is a little heavier

 

[curby]

I've got the 70-200/4 IS, and I'm loving the hell out of its performance on my crop body. I've been idly considering the 70-300 for extra range, but I figure at this point I might as well see if they release a new 100-400 next year. Anyway, I was wondering if the 70-300's shorter length makes its heavier weight (compared to the 70-200/4) any easier to handle. Does holding the weight closer to the camera body help its hand-holdability at all? Thanks!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I've got the 70-200/4 IS, and I'm loving the hell out of its performance on my crop body. I've been idly considering the 70-300 for extra range, but I figure at this point I might as well see if they release a new 100-400 next year. Anyway, I was wondering if the 70-300's shorter length makes its heavier weight (compared to the 70-200/4) any easier to handle. Does holding the weight closer to the camera body help its hand-holdability at all? Thanks!

If the new 100-400 II L is as fantastic as the 70-300L or 70-200 f2.8 II L has been then it'll be a game changer.
It'll be THE lens to get for general and versatile use.

 

[Northstar]

Based on your use and comments, the 70-200 f4 is the choice.

 

[nc0b]

Here is my experience within the 70-300mm range. My first purchase was a used 70-300 IS (non-L) lens. It took excellent small perched bird pictures, usually racked to to 300mm. Its down side was the dramatic extension as it zoomed out (potentially sucking in dust), and it rotated as it focused, neither of which I liked. I then got the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, which is a fantastic lens. It doesn't extend, it doesn't rotate, it takes great pictures wide open, and the AF is very fast. Later I traded my 70-300mm plus $500 for a 70-200mm f/4 IS. I have to stop the f/4 lens down to f/5.6 to get the kind of sharpness of the f/2.8 wide open. The IS in the f/2.8 is much quieter, and the AF is noticeably faster than the f/4 lens. If I am walking fewer than 5 miles, I don't mind the weight of the f/2.8. Shooting indoors with existing light, the f/2.8 wins every time. I have both the 1.4X III and the 2.0X III teleconverters, and the 1.4X works well on both L lenses, is small and doesn't weigh much. Birds in flight (BIF) focus speed degrades noticeably with the 1.4X, while the 2X is basically useless if you lose the frame and the focus get confused on the sky. If shooting static shots, both extenders work well, of course the 2X only works on the f/2.8 lens. For BIF my choice is the 400mm f/5.6 and my 6D. This is the only combination that has worked for me, taking pictures of hawks and eagles as they take off from a perch. (Other bodies I own and have tried for BIF are a 5D Classic, 40D and 60D.) If shooting more general (larger) wildlife, the 60D, 70-200mm f/2.8 & 1.4X TC are fine, and have about the same reach as the 6D and 400mm f/5.6. If outdoors in good light the f/4 zoom is a good walk around lens, particularly on a full-frame body. I have never used the 70-300 L, but I don't plan to buy any more variable f/stop lenses. Often my 15-85mm f/4.0-5.6 is racked out to 85mm and is too slow (or too much ISO noise) indoors. Optically the 15-85mm is just fine outdoors with good light. It generally stays on my 40D. All these comments assume we are not discussing cost, just the pros and cons of each lens.