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

[janmaxim]

Hi

I recently purchased a 6D together with the kit lens 24-105 f4L and have been very happy with the results so far. However, I was photographing a event with the 24-105 f4L earlier this month and noticed I did not have enough reach to get the shots I wanted without cropping. Therefore, I have decided to look into buying a lens with a longer reach than my 24-105L for those situations where I want more reach.

I will mainly use this lens for:
- Nature
- People / pets
- Event
- Travel (I guess the 24-105L will be my go-to lens here anyway)

So far, I've looked into three lenses:
[list type=decimal]
[*]70-200mm f4L IS
[*]70-200mm f2.8L IS II
[*]70-300mm f4-5.6L IS
[/list]

As I have enough for the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, this seemed like a no-brainer by reading all the rave reviews online. However, I tried it out in the store yesterday, and found it to be quite heavy compared to the 70-200mm f4L IS. I am afraid that I might buy it, but don't use it as much as it deserves because of lugging around a 1.4kg lens and a 0.7kg camera a full day might be quite tiresome on my arms and back.

And then came the next logical alternative: 70-200mm f4L IS. I am currently very happy with my 24-105 f4L so I figured I would be able to live with the f4 and the half weight compared to the f2.8 makes it much easier to operate. On the other hand, when I'm shooting in low light situations, I either use my 600EX-RT or switch to my 35 f1.4. So I fear the f4L might be a little slow when shooting indoors.

My the third alternative is the 70-300mm f4-5.6. It is 300g heavier than the 70-200 f4, but still 400g lighter than the 70-200 f2.8. It also has longer reach and would perhaps be more usable for travels or those situations where you want a little extra reach over 200mm. However, as I see it, the same arguments of usage in low light shooting applies to this lens as well.

My main concern is not an economical issue, but which of these lenses will best fit my needs down the road? I am afraid that I might buy one of them now, and then regret it later if I find it too heavy or not able to shoot as well in low light conditions. Have any of you been through the same process? What did you end up with, and why? Which of these lenses would you think complements my shooting the best?

My current gear:
Canon 6D
35 f1.4L
24-105 f4L
600EX-RT

 

[dstppy]

One thing I notice is that everything you listed is IS.

I was an IS baby for the first year and a half I owned DSLRs . . . then I realized I like to freeze motion, so my shutter speed is usually sufficient to not have IS.

That said, I also find heavier lenses a put-off. I was saving up for the 2.8 mk2 IS and then realized, like you, that it's much heavier than I'm used to. I have the Tamron 24-70 2.8, and it seems like about as heavy as I want to deal with.

How important is low-light? You're worrying f4 isn't enough; that shouldn't put the 70-300 on your list at all, no?

One last thing (yes, I'm going to be THAT guy, that recommends something totally different, sorry, it's in my contract). If you have the ability to try it out, see if you can use a 200mm f2.8. It's a light, remarkable lens that is a pleasure to shoot with. You're free to ignore that part ;D as a prime zealot, I'm required to proselytize every other post

 

[janmaxim]

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 ;-)

I have been down the thought of the prime road too. I have been evaluating the Canon 35 - 85 - 135 trinity versus zoom and came to the conclusion that the flexibility of the zoom is great while traveling, while I can live with multiple lenses in my day-to-day shooting. So for traveling I currently have my 24-105 f4L. The 35 have probably been my best photography teacher so far when I used it together with a 600D before I purchased the 6D.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I think on wide angle lenses is the most important F2.8 aperture, while in tele lenses the most important is Image Stabilizer. Following this logic, if you are satisfied with 24-105 F4, you would be very pleased with 70-200 F4 IS. The 70-300L has maximum aperture darker above 150mm. But that would not be a problem for shooting outdoors during the day.

 

[jdramirez]

if heavy is an issue, you may want to consider a 70-300 do lens. they run around 800 used.

I think the 70-200 f4 is is going to be your best bet. you lose a stop of light, but the 6d is a monster in the dark with high iso. it is light enough and you can always at a 1.4 convertor for some reach.

that is the only 70-200 I don't have personal with, but I do hear really good things about it.

 

[John]

i own both the 70-200 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8. i use the 2.8 version more often since i like shooting at 2.8 (low light, faster shutter speeds and the bokeh at 2.8). Having said that, the f/4 version is really nice and it doesn't weigh nearly as much. the f/4 lens will definitely blur backgrounds and it is really a nice lens. you might find that the lighter and smaller lens makes it much better as a walk-around lens. if i am gonna carry the lens around for a while during the day, i much prefer the f4 version. plus, the f4 is less expensive.

 

[Zv]

I have the 70-200 f/4L IS and it's an amazing lens, very versatile and quite manageable when traveling. I bought mine for portraits as it covers the standard portrait focal lengths (85 to 135). It might be lighter but it's still pretty long, especially with the hood on, making it stick out a mile away. Not great for street shooting. For that I have my 135L which is my fave lens. If it had IS I'd easily do away with my zoom.

Anyway, I seem to be using my f/4L IS less these days ever since I got my 135L so you might want to think about that as an alternative. Though it doesn't add all that much reach to your 24-105L. Then again it's so bloody sharp you can crop the final image as much as you want!

However if IS is a priority and you need something lighter than the MKII I recommend the f/4L IS. It performs excellently wide open and only slightly improves when stopped down. I keep the lens at f/4 almost all the time and with the IS you can get up to 4 stops of stabilization so shooting at 1/30th is a possibility even at 200mm.

 

[Sporgon]

Talking about low light; I wouldn't worry about having the one stop faster aperture when you have a 6D - which can virtually see in the dark !

 

[Loswr]

I have the 70-200/2.8L IS II, and it's an amazing and versatile lens. For extra reach, it takes both the 1.4xIII and the 2xIII very well in terms of IQ. However, as you say - it's heavy. I also have the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS, and that's the one I grab for travel.

One possibility, since you have sufficient funds for the 70-200 II, would be to get the 70-300L and also get a fast prime such as the 85mm f/1.8 (or 135/2L, although the latter combination would exceed the cost of the 70-200 II somewhat). I find that having a slower zoom combined with a fast prime works very well, with the former for general use and the latter for use in low light or for subject isolation (where an f/2.8 zoom is good, but not as fast as the primes).

 

[Random Orbits]

Are you using a neck strap or a shoulder strap/holster system to carry the gear? 2 kg around the neck is a lot, but it's a lot easier with a strap system (i.e. BlackRapid).

The 70-200 II is the best choice for nature, people/pets and events, and yes, IS is almost a necessity especially if you want to use it for indoor events. I often drop the shutter speed to 1/50 to 1/100 at 200mm to decrease the ISO. Yes, modern cameras can get you higher ISOs, but the DR is compressed at higher ISOs and highlights are more easily blown. Add bad lighting, and you want as much lattitude with the files as you can get. There is a big difference between working with ISO 3200 and ISO 12800 files. The 70-200 II also takes extenders well. With the 1.4x, it's nearly a match against 70-300L and it is a stop faster. With the 2x, it's a little worse than the 100-400L, which is pretty good performance.

The 70-300L is the best choice for travel. It's compact (shorter but fatter than the 70-200L f/4 IS), which makes it easier to pack in bags (vertically), and it easier to carry when the lens is locked at 70mm. You lose a fractional stop at the same focal lengths to the 70-200 f/4 IS, but outside, it's usually not an issue. Servo AF is not as good as the 70-200 II's.

If I could only have 1 lens out of the group, it'd the be 70-200L II. IQ is good and it focuses well. Only negatives are weight and price. I started with the 70-200 II and brought it everywhere. Later, I picked up a used 70-300L specifically for travel (great as a zoo lens), but I still use the 70-200L II more because it is better for sports, portraits and indoor work.

 

[EOBeav]

Here's a vote for the 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS).

 

[Casey]

Hello Jan;

I had to make the same decision a few months ago. I did a lot of reseach and thought about what I shoot, and also value (i.e. convincing the wife) and ended up buying a refurbished 70-300L while it was on sale for $1,030.00.

I rented the 100-400L, the 70-300L, and borrowed a 70-200 F2.8 and tried them all out. I found that whichever I used that 80% of the time I was at either the narrow end or long end. At 400 the 100-400 seemed soft, and the cropped 300 from the 70-300 was actually sharper. The F2.8 on the 70-200 would be nice, but since I don't shoot indoor sports with it (I am close enough to be able to use the 85 1.8 for now) I could live without the F2.8. I would really have to blow up and pixel peep to see the IQ difference between the 70-300L and the 70-200 2.8.

For the way that I shoot, the 70-300L is much easier to carry, handle, and take the shots that I need. Sure, I would love even more reach (who doesn't ;D) but the 70-300L met the most of my needs for the $$$$'s. F2.8 would be nice, but then it would be harder to handle.

I recommend that you rent (or borrow if you can) the 70-200 F2.8 and 70-300L and see which one best fits your shooting style.

 

[Solar B]

EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS

I have a 400mm zoom lens from a third party manufacturer, and I get better images with my EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS cropped down over my other lens at 400mm.

I'm not pro enough to justify the $$$ of the f/2.8 version but i am totally happy with the f/4 version.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/431-canon_70200_4is_5d?start=2
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11
http://www.lenstip.com/25.11-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-200_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Summary_.html

 

[Eldar]

I´ve done what Neuro has done. I love the 70-200 f2.8L IS II, but it is quite big and heavy. I therefore bought the 70-300 f4-5.6L for travel.
I would never sell the 2.8L, it has phenomenal IQ and it is fast. But if I was going to buy my first zoom lens in this range, I would seriously consider the 70-300L. It is much smaller, it has 200-300mm covered, it is cheaper and it takes up much less space in my bag because it can stand, which means it takes up the same space as an 85/1.2L prime, whereas the 70-200 must lie flat, taking up the space of 2 other lenses. I was positively surprised of the IQ I got from it.

 

[mhvogel.de]

i do NOT recommend the 70 -300 (img quality, speed), then i'd rather take the 100-400 (no overlap of zoom-range with your optic).

regarding the two 70-200s: both do perform very good, so here it maybe is a budget-desicion as well, i'd slightly recommend the 2,8-version (really excellent), maybe keep the price you'll aceive if you sell it some years later in mind, if this helps to justify the priceTag. the 2,8 is a very good investment.

if size/weight is critical maybe the 4,0-version suits your needs better. you'll get it + the new 24-70 4,0 (which might replace your 24-105) for the price of the 2,8.

it's the best (canon) you can get, you'll have a lot of fund wirking with it, and when selling it used.

best mv
(have been working with all the lenses mentioned, own a 24-105, 70-200 2,8 & 100-400)

 

[Eldar]

i do NOT recommend the 70 -300,
regarding the two 70-200s: both perform very good, so here it maybe is a budget-desicion as well, i'd slightly recommend the 2,8-version (really excellent), maybe keep the price you'll aceive if you sell it some years later in mind, if this helps to justify the priceTag. the 2,8 is a very good investment.

it's the best (canon) you can get, you'll have a lot of fund wirking with it, and when selling it used.

best mv

Why can´t you recommend the 70-300L? Since I am normally quite critical to my lenses and have been very happy so far, why are you so unhappy?

 

[Loswr]

i do NOT recommend the 70 -300 (img quality, speed),

Sorry, but...WTF? I hope you are confusing the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (the mid-range consumer zoom from 2005) with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM (professional lens from 2010) - we are disucssing the latter here, not the former. If you don't recommend the 70-300 L for reasons of image quality, I'd be interested to know why you think that. In the overlapping range, the 70-300L has better IQ than the 100-400L...

 

[FEBS]

+1 for the 2.70-200mm f2.8L IS II

This is real versatile lens, very fast, good IQ and works fine with both extenders.

 

[Plinian]

I have both the f/2.8 and the f/4 versions of the 70-200 IS; I bought the f/4 when I was first starting out, and about a year later decided that I really wanted the flexibility of another stop (more on that below), thinking I would sell the f/4.

Both are fantastic in terms of IQ. The main advantages of the f/2.8 (for me) are AF in low-light conditions for moving subjects (large BIF) and extra reach. As someone else said, the 70-200 does very well with a 1.4x ii, and a little less well with the 2x but still acceptable.

Because of the weight advantage, I haven't gotten around to selling the f/4 yet, but I've also barely used it; in situations where there's a choice, I've always gone with the 2.8.

 

[tron]

I too have both the f/2.8 and the f/4 versions of the 70-200 IS. The f/4 is unbeatable for size/weight. Its IQ is also very good.

I used the 2.8 II only in one occasion where I needed the fastest possible 70-200 optic. That has given many good photos but except from such (and rare for me) special cases the f/4 is enough. I can even put my 5D(II or II), 24-105 and 70-200 f/4 IS in a small Thinktank Urban Disguise 30 and still have room for a small optic or flash.

The only thing that stops me from getting 70-300 is that the overlapping would be too much - and no I will NOT sell 70-200 f/4 IS - and the reverse use of focus and zoom rings.

To sum up: It seems difficult to choose. I would rank Nature People/pets Event and Travel categories and then choose accordingly.