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



## janmaxim (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 !


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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


----------



## Casey (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

mhvogel.de said:


> 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.
> ...


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?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2013)

mhvogel.de said:


> 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/4-5.6*L* 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 (Sep 26, 2013)

+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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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.


----------



## albron00 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 26, 2013)

janmaxim said:


> 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 (Sep 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Sep 26, 2013)

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 (Sep 27, 2013)

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 (Sep 27, 2013)

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 (Sep 27, 2013)

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 (Sep 27, 2013)

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 (Sep 27, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> 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 (Sep 27, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Grumbaki said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Sep 27, 2013)

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 (Sep 27, 2013)

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 (Sep 27, 2013)

janmaxim said:


> Hi
> I will mainly use this lens for:
> - Nature
> - People / pets
> ...


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 (Sep 27, 2013)

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 (Sep 27, 2013)

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 (Sep 27, 2013)

Richard8971 said:


> 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.


----------



## greger (Sep 27, 2013)

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 (Sep 27, 2013)

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 (Sep 27, 2013)

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 (Sep 29, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Richard8971 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a real shame that neither the 70-200 f4 LIS or 70-300 LIS is supplied with a tripod collar.
> ...


----------



## nvsravank (Sep 29, 2013)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2013)

fragilesi said:


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



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 (Sep 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



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 (Sep 29, 2013)

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 (Sep 29, 2013)

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


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 29, 2013)

DominoDude said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2013)

janmaxim said:


> 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 (Sep 30, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> 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...


GMCPhotographics said:


> 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 (Sep 30, 2013)

tron said:


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



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


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



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 (Sep 30, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


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 (Sep 30, 2013)

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 (Oct 1, 2013)

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


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 2, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > fragilesi said:
> ...



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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2013)

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


----------



## dw2013 (Oct 2, 2013)

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 (Oct 2, 2013)

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 (Oct 2, 2013)

M.ST said:


> 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 (Oct 2, 2013)

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 (Oct 4, 2013)

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 (Oct 4, 2013)

curby said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2013)

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


----------



## nc0b (Dec 3, 2013)

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.


----------

