# 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?



## garflee (Aug 14, 2012)

Hello All - looking for some help deciding on my next lens. I'm shooting with a 5D Mark III and have the 40mm, 85 1.8 and 24-105L. I'm looking for something with more reach but to also provide me with versatility as well. I want to be able to shoot my kid's soccer games, but want the ability to use the lens for more than just outdoor sports. I would certainly like the extra reach of the 70-300, but I'm afraid it won't be as versatile with the smaller max aperature. The 70-200 2.8 IS II is nice and fast, but it's expensive and won't reach quite as far. Canon's current lens rebates help for sure - so both are in budget.

Suggestions?


----------



## K-amps (Aug 14, 2012)

I have owned both.... 

Get the 70-200 mk. ii if you are worried about light loss. It is "the best" zoom made to date on either the canon or Nikon side of the pond.

You can add a 1.4x or 2x mk.iii converter to it and get the reach and still mantain AF. the mk.iii's are optically much better than the mk.ii TC's.

This is not to say the 70-300L is a slouch... it has great sharpness (on par with the f2.8 mk.ii) and contrast and color, and is cheaper and lighter.

But considering everthing, I went with the 70-200 mk.ii with a TC and am happy.


----------



## heptagon (Aug 14, 2012)

The 70-300L seems better if weight is an concern for hand-holding or travelling. Also it's considerably cheaper without the TC.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 14, 2012)

I have both lenses- the one question I would ask to make this decision is whether you'll be shooting majority OUTDOORS or INDOORS. If OUTDOORS, go with the 70-300 because it is (much!) lighter, and there is plenty of light available so the variable aperture isn't really a problem. If INDOORS, go with the 70-200 because the extra stop(s) will be extremely valuable, especially if you dislike shooting w/flash (like myself).


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Aug 14, 2012)

I have the 70-300L and love it, very sharp, light weight, IS is great. Not a bad lens even indoor when paired with the 5D3. You can bump the ISO up a stop or so to compensate for the smaller aperture (I think it is F5 at 200mm) and the IS allows you to shoot at reasonably low speed. and it is shorter (when retracted) and cheaper too. The draw back is it does not accept the TCs whereas you can add TCs on the 70-200 to reach up to 400mm.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 14, 2012)

I never own 70-300, so no comment. 

However, 70-200 f2.8 IS II this is amust have lens if you Canon shooter, especially with FF. This lens is sharp even at 2.8. You can always crop the pix in PP.


----------



## Mick (Aug 14, 2012)

I have both the 70-300 f4/5.6 L and the 70-200 f2.8 mk 2. Had them out with the sigma 85mm 1.4. I'm no tetchy pixel peeper so I'll tell you what each is like on the streets. Attached to a 1D4 and 1Ds3. The 300 is smallish, light handles great, the colours and tones are outstanding. Autofocus is rapid, it's very well built and the IS really is 4 stops. On a crop body like mine it's almost like a 100/400 only loads better. It's only draw back is the aperture but that depends on what you shoot. Its fine for wildlife mostly, the new cameras high ISO shooting, counters the lack of a wide appeture. Ok the bokeh isn't so hot rather it's ok. So all in all, it's amazing for the price. Oh and it's as sharp as the 70-200. 

The 200 is as well built, bit heavier, same weather sealing, same sharpness, same beautifully colours and tones hell it's almost the same. The weights a bit of a disadvantage as I prefer the lightness of the 300. The range it covers is ok but it's a bit short on a full frame at the long end and a extender slows it down. But for everything up to 200 mm it's the best zoom lens ever. The wide appeture the super fast autofocus etc etc. it's amazing and worth every penny. But...it's short as a telephoto. If you can do without the extra light, buy the 300 it matches the 200 for everything. If you need the light buy the 200.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 14, 2012)

70-200 II. It excels at sports and portraits. For games under the lights, the max aperture advantage over the 70-300L is significant when you're trying to freeze action in low light situations. The 70-200 performs OK with the 1.4x III: IQ degrades slightly and AF speed takes a hit but gets you to 280mm at f/4, which is still a stop faster than the 70-300L. The 2x III makes it notably soft (viewing at 100%) and AF speed takes another hit as well, so I wouldn't recommend using it with the 2x unless you really have to.

The 70-300L is good when there is enough light. It's more compact and weighs less (~1 lb less if although it still weighs about 2.5 lb), which makes it a better choice for places like zoos or day trips. If you're ok with the weight and cost of the 70-200 II, then get the 70-200 II. The 70-300L is a great choice if you're budget limited or travel a lot and like to travel light because one lens can cover most of your telephoto range.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 14, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> 70-200 II. It excels at sports and portraits. For games under the lights, the max aperture advantage over the 70-300L is significant when you're trying to freeze action in low light situations. The 70-200 performs OK with the 1.4x III: IQ degrades slightly and AF speed takes a hit but gets you to 280mm at f/4, which is still a stop faster than the 70-300L. The 2x III makes it notably soft (viewing at 100%) and AF speed takes another hit as well, so I wouldn't recommend using it with the 2x unless you really have to.
> 
> The 70-300L is good when there is enough light. It's more compact and weighs less (~1 lb less if although it still weighs about 2.5 lb), which makes it a better choice for places like zoos or day trips. If you're ok with the weight and cost of the 70-200 II, then get the 70-200 II. The 70-300L is a great choice if you're budget limited or travel a lot and like to travel light because one lens can cover most of your telephoto range.



Most importantly, you get access to more AF sensor points with the 70-200L II IS lens on the 1D4 and 1DX. You can shoot sports very easily with the 70-200 whereas the 70-300 performs rather poorly due to lack of AF sensor type access.


----------



## sleepnever (Aug 14, 2012)

I've used both in varying situations and lighting on my T2i. Both are really well built and give great images, even with moving targets. As others have said, the high ISO ability of the newer cameras really makes me think I will spend almost half the money on the 70-300L as I upgrade my camera body this year. Its also so much lighter than the 70-200L. 

Two things that are a bummer on the 70-300L though... 
1) is how fast it falls off from f/4 to f/5.6 on the long end. You don't get f/4 for very long. 
2) it is not compatible with Canon teleconverters if you care

The 70-200L you lose some reach, but you're always at whatever f/stop you choose which is great. The 70-200 being a prime will also give you a slight edge on sharpness.

I say if you have not already, rent both via LensRentals or BorrowLenses or whomever locally and try them out. I've borrowed each of them twice now from a local shop for $35 a day. I constantly struggle with what I'm going to shell out for. =)


----------



## SteveCSmith (Aug 14, 2012)

I'm a hobbiest and own both. I'd have to day that the 70-300 is sharper than the 70-200, though not by a substantial margin. That, along with the weight, make it my first choice if I'm able to use it. Its sharp enough to crop photos substantially for more zoom. Phenomenal lens, hands down (read the review of it in Africa on this site).

However, it falls short for low light. If you are shooting stills on a tripod, it can be okay, but still has a harder time auto-focusing (compared both shooting colorado wildfires this summer at night). Night sports outdoors (tried a rodeo), indoor kids programs, etc. - the 70-200 shines. The auto-focus is definitely faster, even in good light. So, you might find the 70-300L frustrating at a soccer game even at high noon.

One other option to consider... maybe pick up a used 70-200 2.8 non-IS and a 70-300L for about the same a a bit more money?

FWIW, I've been shooting these lenses with a 60D. With a FF, you may really want the extra reach. The clean high-ISO of the Mark III might make the 70-300L work for you.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Aug 15, 2012)

How's the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM compared to the 70-300L? Obviously it's not going to be built quite like the L lenses, but otherwise does it compare well?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 15, 2012)

SteveCSmith said:


> I'm a hobbiest and own both. I'd have to day that the 70-300 is sharper than the 70-200, though not by a substantial margin. That, along with the weight, make it my first choice if I'm able to use it. Its sharp enough to crop photos substantially for more zoom. Phenomenal lens, hands down (read the review of it in Africa on this site).
> 
> However, it falls short for low light. If you are shooting stills on a tripod, it can be okay, but still has a harder time auto-focusing (compared both shooting colorado wildfires this summer at night). Night sports outdoors (tried a rodeo), indoor kids programs, etc. - the 70-200 shines. The auto-focus is definitely faster, even in good light. So, you might find the 70-300L frustrating at a soccer game even at high noon.
> 
> ...



Ummm no. The 70-200L II IS is sharper than the 70-300L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> How's the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM compared to the 70-300L? Obviously it's not going to be built quite like the L lenses, but otherwise does it compare well?



Optically inferior, by a substantial margin.



bdunbar79 said:


> SteveCSmith said:
> 
> 
> > ...the 70-300 is sharper than the 70-200
> ...



+1. When I read comments like that, my first question is, have you properly AF microadjusted both lenses? Usually, the answer is no.


----------



## ideaworx (Aug 15, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Ummm no. The 70-200L II IS is sharper than the 70-300L.



+1 +1 70-200L is the sharpest tool in that shed.


----------



## Menace (Aug 15, 2012)

70-200 2.8 IS II


----------



## Jotho (Aug 15, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > 70-200 II. It excels at sports and portraits. For games under the lights, the max aperture advantage over the 70-300L is significant when you're trying to freeze action in low light situations. The 70-200 performs OK with the 1.4x III: IQ degrades slightly and AF speed takes a hit but gets you to 280mm at f/4, which is still a stop faster than the 70-300L. The 2x III makes it notably soft (viewing at 100%) and AF speed takes another hit as well, so I wouldn't recommend using it with the 2x unless you really have to.
> ...


Hey, I've been looking to get the 70-300 L, recommended by people on this forum a few weeks back. I have a 5dMkii. I'm not all that familiar with all the terms related to photography, could you please explain what you mean with 'lack of AF sensor type access'? Won't the lens work with all AF points in the Mkiii?


----------



## JRS (Aug 15, 2012)

Jotho said:


> could you please explain what you mean with 'lack of AF sensor type access'? Won't the lens work with all AF points in the Mkiii?



The 61 points AF will only work with 2.8 or faster lens...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 15, 2012)

Jotho said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



Sure! Ok, let's just say the 5D Mark III has a potential of 61 AF points and AF sensor types that can be used. The # you can actually use in certain situations is dependent on the lens being used as well. More importantly, the PATTERN used depends on the lens. The 70-200L II IS lens is in Group A, where all 61 AF points can be used in Autofocus mode. This pattern, however, includes dual cross types and cross types. This is superior in sports/action motion. The 70-300L is in Group E, where again, all 61 AF points are available. However, the pattern here is only certain or a few of the cross types. So its pattern is far inferior to the 70-200L IS II lens for action/sports/tracking, etc. I tried to type this off the top of my head, so maybe someone can cite sentences from a manual or do a better job than what I have explained.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 15, 2012)

JRS said:


> Jotho said:
> 
> 
> > could you please explain what you mean with 'lack of AF sensor type access'? Won't the lens work with all AF points in the Mkiii?
> ...



NO.


----------



## Jotho (Aug 15, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Jotho said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


Ah, yes now I remember having looked (but not read thoroughly) at that in the manual while checking my current lenses.Thanks for your reply!


----------



## expatinasia (Aug 15, 2012)

I have both and think you would be better to get the 70-200 2.8 IS II for reasons already mentioned.

Both are great lenses but you do tend to get what you pay for, and as long as you can afford it then the 70-200 2.8 IS II is what I would get if I had the choice.


----------



## M.ST (Aug 15, 2012)

If you have a FF body get the EF 70-200 2.8 IS II. It´s performs better and you can shoot pictures in low light conditions.

The 70-300L is very good on APS-C bodys. On FF you see (with my tested lens) CA´s and vignetting.


----------



## Act444 (Aug 15, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Ummm no. The 70-200L II IS is sharper than the 70-300L.



I have to agree. Although the margin (difference) is actually quite small near the long end, and at smaller apertures (probably won't notice a difference, honestly). But at 70mm there's no contest, the 70-200 is clearly better.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Aug 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > How's the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM compared to the 70-300L? Obviously it's not going to be built quite like the L lenses, but otherwise does it compare well?
> ...



Ah, too bad. It'd probably be a handier/less obvious of a lens than the white L version.


----------



## pwp (Aug 15, 2012)

There are plenty of reasons why the 70-200 f/2.8isII is found in just about every professional Canon shooters bag worldwide, usually permanently attached to a body. It's just the most amazing lens, for reasons that have been expounded ad-infinitum on this list and all over the www for years. Ignore this at your peril. This lens has credibility plus.

The 70-300L is without question a very fine piece of glass and a bargain to boot, but the 70-200 f/2.8isII just ticks a hell of a lot more boxes.

-PW


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 15, 2012)

garflee said:


> I would certainly like the extra reach of the 70-300, but I'm afraid it won't be as versatile with the smaller max aperature. The 70-200 2.8 IS II is nice and fast, but it's expensive and won't reach quite as far.


I've got the 70-300L, and while the 70-200L is of course the "money is no issue" pro and superior lens (has an edge in sharpness, and of course constant f2.8). And if you've got the cash it's not that hard to decide for you, but my 2cents to remember anyway...

* Weight! Go to a shop, plug on a 70-200L + a 600rt-type flash and leisurely hold it to eye level for some time or dangle it from your hand. Right, that's why I got the lighter 70-300L for all day outdoor shots which creates much less torque on your wrist because the weight is nearer to the camera body.

* AF: On the 5d3/1dx the 70-300L only has horizontal af points to the side, so that's a drawback (see the manual). But af precision of the 70-300L is very good on the 5d3 anyway, even compared to the 70-200L: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-3a-canon-lenses

* Aperture: The 70-300L is a outdoor good light lens. full stop. But then it excels, because the depth of field @300mm and f5.6 is extremely thin anyway, so in may cases you wouldn't want to stop down for this reason. Shutter speed should be no issue, esp. on full frame with higher iso capability. If you need a fast aperture it is a feasibly alternative to get some also light prime lenses in addition, word is you cannot beat a 135L portrait with the 70-200L, though the latter of course is more versatile.

* Zoom lenght: Standard advice is that a tc is for occasional use and not for always on (drop in sharpness, slower af). If you don't think 200mm is enough, get a 70-300L or wait for the new 100-400L. Btw, you can plug on a Kenko 1.4x tc on the 70-300L to get to 420mm @f8, iq is good and non-mission critical af in good light is ok.


----------



## FarQinell (Aug 15, 2012)

If you are shooting a lot beyond 200 then the 70-300L is the best choice.

The ISO 12233 charts (the-digital-picture) clearly show that the 70-300L @ 300 is sharper than the 70-200/2.8 II plus latest Canon 1.4XTC @ 280.

These charts also show that even @ 200 there is not much difference in performance between either. Obviously in low light the f2.8 is a much better performer.

The 70-300L is a new design, will be cheaper and lighter and you have the satisfaction of knowing that Canon do not do dud L lenses!

PS I suspect that the (allegedly) forthcoming 100-400L will be a scaled up version of the 70-300L


----------



## garflee (Aug 15, 2012)

Thank you everyone! Very thoughtful comments. I'll def make my decision before the summer sale ends. Incredible pros and cons on both sides - just need to figure out which are most important to what I want in this lens.

Thanks!


----------



## HW (Aug 15, 2012)

As mentioned above, you should check out the lensrentals blog article with regards to focus accuracy.

It says 5D III in AF mode yields a more precise focus with the 70-300 L than the 70-200 II L (almost half the value of standard deviation, 13 vs. 24), 

"70-300mm L appears to focus with the accurate group, while the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is kind of on the border. Not in the teens certainly, but it’s the best of all the other lenses."


----------



## klement (Aug 15, 2012)

I have both 70-300 and 70-200 2,8 IS
Conclusion: For light travel the 70-300 is ideal. Makes good sharp picts if you add 2 stops to the focal etc.
But the king of zooms must be the 70-200 2.8 IS. Everything it does it does better than any other zoom and better than most non-zoom lenses. Together with the extenders x 1.4 og x 2 mark III you can du wonderfull
long shots. 
I use it with Canon 5 D mk. III.
Claus.


----------



## dadgummit (Aug 15, 2012)

I have both too,

The 70-200 IS 2.8 II is sharper (slightly) faster 1-2 stops, and focuses faster. It is very heavy so if you ever have a situation where yo will be carrying it for an extended period of time you will not be happy. 

The 70-300L is still very sharp even wide open. much smaller and lighter. great range, fast focus, and still an L lens in every way. 

When I attend family picnics or sporting events where I want the speed and IQ and I can put it down I take the 70-200. When I go to the zoo, hiking, Sea World with the family, etc the 70-300 comes with me.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 15, 2012)

I don't own, but have rented, the 70-200 2.8 II and yes, it's as good as everyone says it is. If you need the extra low-light/speed, don't mind the weight, and can afford it, go for it. 

That said, there are different types of versatility. Assuming I needed the extra reach of the 70-300 L I bought one, but must have received a bad copy - sometimes it was no sharper (sometimes it was distinctly less sharp) than my 70-300 non-L IS, so I returned it. While wondering whether to try another copy or just take a deep breath and buy a 70-200 2.8 II I came across a good price on a used 70-200 f/4 IS and bought that as a stop-gap. Like the 70-200 2.8 II it's so sharp at 200mm that cropping it to 300mm equiv. gives better results than I've obtained at 300mm with either the 70-300mm lenses I've owned or the 300mm f/4 IS I rented, plus it has the not inconsiderable advantage of being smaller and lighter than the 70-300 L, not to mention the 70-200 2.8 II (it's barely bigger/heavier than the 70-300 non-L). 

So unless you miss the ability to go to 2.8 (which you wouldn't have with the 70-300 L either, of course), it seems to me that the 70-200 f/4 IS is wonderfully versatile - I can easily carry it around all day and had no hesitation taking it with me to Paris a few months ago; not sure I could say that about the 70-200 2.8 II. I still have a nagging desire for a 70-200 2.8 II but can't help wondering just how often I would notice an improvement.... But of course only you know what you want/need. Best of all, you could rent both and find out first-hand which lens serves you better. (All of the above was based on my experiences with a 5DII.)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 15, 2012)

HW said:


> As mentioned above, you should check out the lensrentals blog article with regards to focus accuracy.
> 
> It says 5D III in AF mode yields a more precise focus with the 70-300 L than the 70-200 II L (almost half the value of standard deviation, 13 vs. 24),
> 
> "70-300mm L appears to focus with the accurate group, while the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is kind of on the border. Not in the teens certainly, but it’s the best of all the other lenses."



Except in sports, when you need dual cross types and cross types. And a wider aperture. General use, I'd probably pick the 70-300L because of the range. I'd never take the 70-300L to sports though.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Aug 15, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> HW said:
> 
> 
> > As mentioned above, you should check out the lensrentals blog article with regards to focus accuracy.
> ...



If I recall correctly, that's also with the center point, not all AF points. I could be wrong though.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > How's the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM compared to the 70-300L? Obviously it's not going to be built quite like the L lenses, but otherwise does it compare well?
> ...



I have tested both lenses @ 100mm (actually tested 3 samples of the 70-200mk.ii which tested very similar to each other) and found the 70-300L was a tad sharper. 

Yes I did not AFMA on my 5Dc , but the fact that it was sharper than all 3 70-200mk.ii's told me what I needed to know. Having said that, the 70-200mk.ii is sharp enough, heck it is VERY sharp. The 70-300L gets a bad rap because of it's smallish and variable aperture, otherwise it is a very capable lens. It blows the non-L versions of the 70-300mm lenses out of the water. The IQ difference is huge. Read review and see samples on TDP.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 15, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > HW said:
> ...



What is with the center point? The available dual cross types and cross type sensors available is with all AF points. In order to use dual cross typeS, you need one more than one point, right? Look at your manual, it's explained fully.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Aug 15, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Read the LensRentals articles, it explicitly states that the center AF point was the only one use for the phase detect tests. My point is that while the article might show the 70-300L having more accurate focusing with the newer cameras, but it doesn't tell the whole store because it's only using a single point. So the AF accuracy might be quite a bit different between the 70-300L and 70-200L at different points, or using different groupings of points. 

Now, that doesn't mean you are at all wrong about the 70-200L being a much better choice for sports in general, especially with the significantly wider aperture enabling the more accurate AF points and higher shutter speeds. I just wanted to point out that using the single center point doesn't specifically link to it being a better or worse lens for sports. It's the other factors aside from the more accurate focusing that makes the 70-200L the better lens.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 15, 2012)

That's fine, I just didn't know what you meant. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## OliverO (Aug 15, 2012)

I've been using the 70-300L with a 5D mk.III for about a month now, and really like it. It is not only lighter than the 70-200 IS 2.8, but significantly shorter as well. It actually isn't that much longer than a 24-105L, though it is unusually thick. It telescopes out as you increase focus length, but there is a switch that will lock it at the 70mm position when you are carrying it around. It fits in the camera bag easily, and is just less of a hassle to carry around, whether on the camera or off. The extra reach is nice to have. Build quality is superb, of course.
The biggest disadvantage of the 70-300L to me is that the position of the zoom and manual focus rings is reversed compared to other zoom lenses. (Maybe there is some engineering reason why they had to do this to get such a wide focal range in such a sort lens?) On this lens, the focus ring is close to the body and the zoom ring is out near the end of the lens. I find this a little awkward, and it takes some getting used to, especially after changing lenses.
The other disadvantage is that it is a "Group E" lens, so although all 61 AF points are available on the 5D mk.III, only the ones in the center are cross-type. But the AF on the 5D mk.III is so good that I haven't had a problem with this lens, even for outdoor sports. 
Yes, it would be nice if it were faster than f5.6, but as someone else pointed out, depth of field at long focal lengths gets pretty thin anyway. I think even if I had an f2.8, a lot of times I would stop down to 5.6 or more anyway, just to be able to get, for example, all the players in a group in focus at once.


----------



## Marsu42 (Aug 15, 2012)

sdsr said:


> Assuming I needed the extra reach of the 70-300 L I bought one, but must have received a bad copy - sometimes it was no sharper (sometimes it was distinctly less sharp) than my 70-300 non-L IS, so I returned it.


Even with Canon lenses, there are bad copies - look at the iso crops for the 70-300L @the-digital picture, they got another copy because the first one was bad: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 70-300 non-L actually is also ok iq-wise except for the long end, so maybe that's why you didn't see a difference. But of course the L has better is, faster & silent non-micro usm af and much better build quality. 

Concerning the 70-200/4: It is certainly a good lens and a tad sharper than the 70-300L while keeping constant aperture - but whenever I see it I find it strangely long for something you also shoot at 70mm. Of course internal zooming is technically superior to the telescope design of the 70-300L, but handling & transport imho is simply better with a shorter lens.


----------

