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

[albron00]

Personally for me the only downside for f/2.8 is the weight, while comparing to f/4.
I've found that I use more often f/4 only because of lightweight.
I take f/2.8 if I now that I'm gonna shoot in dark conditions or some kind of prepared event.
For 'just go and shoot' I prefer f/4.
Any lens is good as long as you have it in you bag with you.
This is my opinion.
I use them on 5DmIII

 

[yablonsky]

I would recommend the 70-200 F/4 L IS.
It is my favorite lens! It is light and sharp.
Wonderful for travelling.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Get the very best you can out of your cameras AF. If money isn't the issue then get the f2.8. Keeps all your options open regarding extenders and AF in the future and is the best of the bunch.

I don't see the point of spending this kind of money on a variable aperture f5.6 lens. No matter how much lighter it is.

Don't want to lug a lot of gear around. Buy a superzoom compact.

 

[SwnSng]

the 70-200 2.8L is one amazing lens. I use it for pretty much everything. Event, Sports (boys soccer), Landscape, Nightscapes, and portrait. I can never not recommend this lens. If weight is too big of an issue for you, then perhaps go with the 70-300L.

 

[ScottyP]

Get the 70-200 f2.8 II and ALSO the 1.4x tele extender and you have fewer compromises to get the same versatility.

 

[Steb]

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.

In this case I would recommend to postpone the decision for one of those lenses and start with a 300mm f2.8 first. Use it for some time, then go and try the 70-200mm f2.8 again. It will feel like a toy. ;D

Anyway, the 70-200/2.8 is one of my favorites and I would definitely miss the 2.8. Especially if you want to shoot people, f4 or slower would not be my first choice. If you go for a lighter solution you have to choose between constant aperture and more reach. The 70-300 is very compact compared to the internal zoom lenses. So if size is most important for you, this is the lens. I don't think there is much difference in IQ when you compare the 70-300 with the 70-200 f4.

 

[sagittariansrock]

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.

+1.

I have the 70-200 II and I absolutely love it. Can't even think of replacing it with anything else. However, often I am not able to take it to places, and I end up without a long lens. It is expensive, big, conspicuous and heavy. So I shall have to get an additional lens for portability (probably the 135 f2). Please bear this in mind if you go for the 2.8 II

 

[TommyLee]

I say the 70-300L

a good range... and seems to be a sharp lens...I dont have it
had the non-L.... it was pretty good...even at 300mm.....but the range was VERY useful..
and it matched with a second (or third) lens for travel very well..

you seem to want reach... that 70-300L likely does better than most for that

I am SURE the 70-200 II is too heavy
IMO it is almost a specialized lens because of the weight.. it is a real fine optic and a problem solver...but is truly 'baggage' sometimes
unless that is specifically what you use and want regularly(does ok with 2xTC too)

frankly the 35L and 70-300 cover a lot ...
add a less expensive 14mm (I prefer the 14L II) and these three do a ton of work on a trip
(or a fisheye)
I wouldn't enter a big city - as a tourist - without 14mm or 16mm...... gets a tall building in a single bound...and if you have the 70-300, you can reach waayy up those bldgs and bridges...to grab a gargoyle...
---------

70-300L

Tom

 

[chas1113]

It sounds like you're really debating between two lenses, not three. I traded up to a 70-300L from a 70-200 f/4 IS. Yes, up. After testing both side by side, color, clarity, contrast, IS, size (packed) was better on my 70-300L. Both lenses are f/4 at 70mm and my 70-300L was sharper there. Both lenses are 5.6 at 280mm and my 70-300L was sharper there. One lens has snappier AF at a native 300mm, the other doesn't; one is sharper with no TC-induced flaring/veiling at 300mm, the other isn't.

Maybe my 70-200 f/4 IS was substandard (I don't think so), but my 70-300L was better at most things with no need for an extender. So I kept it instead. If you can test both side by side, that would be best. They are both very good lenses and choosing between them is very difficult.

 

[mwh1964]

Got both 70-300L and 70-200 f2.8. Both are terrific lenses and you will be happy with both no matter which one you choose. However they sort of serve different purposes. If you are certain of no f2.8 need I would recommend the 70-300L. It is a very capable lens and the bokeh for some reviewers a rated better than the 2.8. I bring the 70-300 everywhere while I do consider if it is necessary to bring the f2.8. That might also give a hint. Good luck choosing.

 

[Don Haines]

I debated a long time between the F4 and the F2.8 version of the 70-200. I ended up going for the F4 version because the sharpness is almost identical and most importantly, it is a LOT lighter.. a big factor when you carry it on hikes and canoe trips.

 

[Grumbaki]

Am I the only one that find that a 800g difference is not worth F4? I mean except for trekkers, elderly and disabled, it shouldn't make such a difference in opinions...IMHO.

 

[jdramirez]

Am I the only one that find that a 800g difference is not worth F4? I mean except for trekkers, elderly and disabled, it shouldn't make such a difference in opinions...IMHO.

Your not the only one. I have my 70-200mm f/2.8L Is mkii and the only other lens that I might be willing to consider within that focal range is the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... and it is almost as heavy.

When I played football, my neck hurt from wearing the helmet during camp and 2 a days... (the smashing into other people probably contributed as well), but after a while, the weight isn't even a factor anymore.

 

[Zv]

Am I the only one that find that a 800g difference is not worth F4? I mean except for trekkers, elderly and disabled, it shouldn't make such a difference in opinions...IMHO.

Your not the only one. I have my 70-200mm f/2.8L Is mkii and the only other lens that I might be willing to consider within that focal range is the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM... and it is almost as heavy.

When I played football, my neck hurt from wearing the helmet during camp and 2 a days... (the smashing into other people probably contributed as well), but after a while, the weight isn't even a factor anymore.

That's true with a BlackRapid strap (which is what you should use for hiking anyway IMO) you wouldn't really feel much difference. The standard strap will cut right into your neck.

However for traveling every gram extra is a hassle and you want as little gear as possible. No point lugging extra weight if there is no need for it. 24-105L + 70-300L seems like a pretty sweet travel combo with the 6D. You could fit that in a much smaller bag too. Perfect for little day trips to the zoo or what not. With the weight saving you could chuck a flash in there or a small tripod.

 

[s2kdriver80]

To me, the issue with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is the size, not so much the weight. If I never travel, I probably would have opted for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for the extra stop and shallower dof. But I went with the 70-200mm f/4L IS since I do travel (and on planes) and I'm able to fit two 5D3 bodies, 24-105mm, 16-35mm II, 70-200mm f/4L IS, and two 430EX II Speedlites into a bag small enough to be considered a personal carry-on item. And so far, the 70-200 f/4L IS has been good enough for events.

 

[Pi]

Since you mentioned travel, then the 70-200/4 IS. It is the lightest of the bunch. I have taken it with me to several continents. There is no way I can travel with the f/2.8. The reach (at the expense of speed at 300mm) of the 70-300 is not important to me for travel except in rare cases.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Hi
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.

Of all the zoom lenses I've ever owned or tried, the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II is the AWESOMEST zoom lens of them all ... but like you said it is kind of heavy to lug around (especially for travel). For versatility 70-300 L IS is the most fun lens of them all, coz it is relatively small in size to pack (although the barrel does extend quite a bit when you zoom). On the other hand 70-200 f/4 L IS is a great lens in a lighter package. But if there are only 2 zoom lenses that I am allowed to carry then they would be 24-105 L IS & 70-300 L IS.
If you have any doubt that the weight, of 70-200 f/2.8 L IS would put you off from carrying your lens, then get the 70-300 L IS ... it is sharp, fast and small to pack for travel. As the say "the best camera (or lens) is the one you carry".
Since you like nature photography, buying the 70-300 L IS will leave enough money to get the 17-40mm f/4 lens ... which will cover you from ultra-wide to 300mm, a nice range have for travel in a relatively "light package".
Happy shopping

 

[Richard8971]

I had the EF 70-200L IS ISM f4 lens and sold it. I replaced it with the EF 70-300L IS USM lens and I love it. A very "hidden" lens in the lineup and very underrated. I love how compact it is when not in use and the images are stellar. Very sharp throughout the range and I couldn't be happier.

The little bit of added weight is quickly overlooked for the additional reach it gives.

D

 

[AudioGlenn]

All joking aside, I suggest you get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II plus a couple dumbbells. If the weight is bothering you that much, you need to start lifting, bro.

No judgement... seriously. My neck and shoulders were not conditioned for the first time I carried a DSLR all day (and that was a T3i + 24-105). I started exercising (nothing crazy) and now, I can shoot a wedding for 10-12 hours carrying TWO mk3s (1 with a 24-70 2.8 II, and 1 with a 70-200 2.8 IS II) without having to pay for it painfully the next day.

If you're unable to work out due to age, medical conditions, etc., that's another story. Personally, I lost 20 lbs. since I started photography. It's been great for me.

Another thing that helped me was switching out my stupid (or shall I say poorly designed) neck strap for a decent strap. Currently, I use the Spider Holster system and a spare Carry Speed strap to carry two bodies on serious gigs. I'm sure you can find a setup that will suit your needs/budget.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I had the EF 70-200L IS ISM f4 lens and sold it. I replaced it with the EF 70-300L IS USM lens and I love it. A very "hidden" lens in the lineup and very underrated. I love how compact it is when not in use and the images are stellar. Very sharp throughout the range and I couldn't be happier.

The little bit of added weight is quickly overlooked for the additional reach it gives.

D

I had both the 70-200 L IS f2.8 II and the 70-200 L IS f4 lenses, and I often chose to take the f4 version with me on assignments because it was lighter and easier to handle. I needed to sell a load of stuf to fund my 400mm f2.8 LIS and undortunatly the f4 went...which I regret. AS much as I love the f2.8 version, it's nowhere near as compact or as easy to use. I've tried a few 70-300 L IS lenses, owned by photographer friends and they are very nice. Extreamly sharp and very versatile. I think it's a hard choice between the 70-200 f4 L IS and the 70-300 L IS. Especially if you have a 1.4 TC already. I personally would taken a 70-200 f4 LIS and a 1.4x TC, it's a little lighter and cheaper. but if I saw a good deal on a 70-300 LIS, that would swing me.

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