# 70-200 f/2.8LisII with x1.4TC VS 70-300 f/4-5.6L



## pwp (Dec 2, 2011)

I was a heartbeat from dropping the Visa card on a new 70-300 f/4-5.6L and stopped short when I saw I basically have this covered with the 70-200 f/2.8LisII and the x1.4TCII (= f/4 98mm-280mm) 

Is there room for both lenses in the bag? Who runs with both?

Paul Wright


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 2, 2011)

I have both. But I dont use the converter on the 70-200 - no need as the 70-300 is sharp wide open.

The 70-300 is a general purpose, walkbout lens.

To compare the two are like comparing chalk and cheese.

Brian


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2011)

I have the 70-200 II and both 1.4x and 2x TCs (MkII), and also the 100-400mm. I use a TC with the 70-200 II when I need weather sealing, or when I don't want to carry two big white zooms. 

Having said that, I have (and am still) considering the 70-300 L as a travel lens. 

FWIW, here are two shots with the 70-200 II + TC:




EOS 7D, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 1.4x II Extender @ 280mm, 1/2000 s, f/6.3, ISO 3200




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM + EF 2x II Extender @ 260mm, 1/250 s, f/5.6, ISO 400


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 2, 2011)

pwp said:


> Is there room for both lenses in the bag? Who runs with both?



Sharing lenses w. the lady makes it easier to justify both. 
They each have their benefits, but for me alone I would keep only the 70-200. Not a fault of the 70-300, but whether the weight difference and convenience of not mounting the TC are worth the money.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 2, 2011)

I have both. Actually currently have 2 copies of 70-200f28mk.ii (long story): I think my 70-300L is sharper. I was going to sell it after I got the 70-200, but so far I am not feeling the urge. The 70-200 is sharp and very nice overall, still... both copies not as sharp as my 70-300L.

As others have said it is easier to handle and great for travel/ walkabout. No need to monopod. Great lens.

your con would be cost of TC vs. 1350 or so.

Given a choice I would not get rid of the 70-200 either. It's great indoors, has a great Bokeh and an "X" factor that makes some pictures almost magical... 

Good luck.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2011)

K-amps said:


> The 70-200 is sharp and very nice overall, still... both copies not as sharp as my 70-300L.



Your experience differs from some of the reviews. Are you basing the comparison on images where you used autofocus, and have you done an AF microadjustment for your lenses?


----------



## DasFoto (Dec 2, 2011)

I had both and sold the 70-200 2.8II to use the 70-300L exclusively as the 70-200 2.8 is too long for use indoors (for my taste). I found the 70-300L to be as sharp or sharper as the other. It is also much lighter, as solidly built, easy to carry around and travel with, and gives great marcro, portrait and long distance results outdoors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2011)

DasFoto said:


> I had both and sold the 70-200 2.8II to use the 70-300L exclusively as the 70-200 2.8 is too long for use indoors (for my taste).



?? I assume you aren't referring to focal length, since the 70-300mm is longer. But when you consider the extended length of the 70-300mm L, it's less than 1/4" shorter than the 70-200mm II...


----------



## K-amps (Dec 2, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-200 is sharp and very nice overall, still... both copies not as sharp as my 70-300L.
> ...



Not getting into a debate with you Neuro...  but to answer your question: Used AF but No micro adjustment since my 5Dc does not support it. The refurbed one has some back focus issues on AF, at a distance of about 20ft from the subject, it will focus 6-7 inches deeper than the spot AF I choose. This is consistent (f2.8 ). When it does focus 6-7 inches back, the results are sharp. I posted a 100mm test in another thread, the newer one has less of this back focus bias, but when they do focus, the sharpness of both copies is similar. I posted a couple of quick shots here comparing the two 70-200's I have: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2262.15.html towards the bottom of the page. 

With my 70-300L, It is easier to make out the weave of the fabric of the subject clearer at similar distances compared to the 70-200f2.8. Assuming both shot at 200mm. Granted I have not done set up formal tests for this scenario (200mm) , just going of experience...

I will set up more elaborate tests if you care to purchase the 70-300L, otherwise personally I am convinced my the 70-300L copy is sharper than both 70-200f2.8's which are pretty sharp on their own.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2011)

K-amps said:


> Not getting into a debate with you Neuro...  but to answer your question: Used AF but No micro adjustment since my 5Dc does not support it.



Sorry - forgot the body you are using. My guess is AF is the main issue, but without AFMA there's nothing you can do, short of sending body and lens to Canon. I certainly can't argue with your conclusion - your 70-300L copy is sharper than both (of your) 70-200f2.8's. But if you're relying on autofocus, I don't think that conclusion can be generalized to the lenses as a group, i.e. the AF is confounding the conclusion. The usual testing procedure is to manually focus (10x live view) or better yet, focus bracket (and take the sharpest image) to compare sharpness across lenses. In that type of comparison, the 70-200mm II should have a slight edge over the 70-300 L.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 2, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> The usual testing procedure is to manually focus (10x live view) or better yet, focus bracket (and take the sharpest image) to compare sharpness across lenses.



Liveview? You are rubbing it in again


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 2, 2011)

I believe that the 70-300L is better at the 70-100 range than the 70-200II - however it may be better colour contrast . However this is personal preference based on A3 prints rather than some scientific test.

That said both lens are top draw - I am happy to have both - mostly the 70-300 goes on the 5DII and the 70-200II goes on the 7D/1D4 due to the use that I make of the different bodies.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 2, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I believe that the 70-300L is better at the 70-100 range than the 70-200II - however it may be better colour contrast . However this is personal preference based on A3 prints rather than some scientific test.
> 
> That said both lens are top draw - I am happy to have both - mostly the 70-300 goes on the 5DII and the 70-200II goes on the 7D/1D4 due to the use that I make of the different bodies.



In your case, they would have similar lengths and would be substitutes to each other; Interestingly, I was thinking the other way around : 70-200 on the FF for portraits and indoor shots and the 70-300 on the Crop for more reach, I don't need redundancy as much, I want range.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2011)

K-amps said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > mostly the 70-300 goes on the 5DII and the 70-200II goes on the 7D/1D4 due to the use that I make of the different bodies.
> ...



Agreed - that's why I use the 100-400mm on my 7D and the 70-200mm on my 5DII, for the most part.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 2, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



I am sure you must have tried the 2x on the 100-400 on a 7D... Thats close to 1300mm equivalent !! Was the footage usable?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2011)

K-amps said:


> I am sure you must have tried the 2x on the 100-400 on a 7D... Thats close to 1300mm equivalent !! Was the footage usable?



A couple of examples of the 100-400mm + 2x Extender II on the 7D below. Not the best day for it - gloomy and misty, and f/11 of course. Shot from a tripod. Both are at ISO 3200 and cropped a bit. The biggest challenge was focusing, which would have been close to impossible without IS on the lens.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 2, 2011)

Not bad...pretty usable. I'd rather have this then miss a shot.


----------



## funkboy (Dec 2, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> A couple of examples of the 100-400mm + 2x Extender II on the 7D below. Not the best day for it - gloomy and misty, and f/11 of course. Shot from a tripod. Both are at ISO 3200 and cropped a bit. The biggest challenge was focusing, which would have been close to impossible without IS on the lens.



Not bad at all. Seems like the most noticeable thing to my eye is the loss of contrast; certainly more than with my 1.4x. How much post-prod did you do on these?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2011)

Almost nothing on post except cropping. The poor contrast may not be the lens - there was a lot of mist in the air that day (enough that I had to wipe down my gear).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2011)

FWIW, a while back I compared 100-400 @ 400mm cropped vs. +1.4x II and preferred the cropped shot. For the shot above with the 2x, I preferred the 2x to the crop, which seemed to have even less contrast - but the shots were 15 min apart (patient owlet!), so the difference may have been more due to changing mist than optics. Maybe I'll test both under more controlled conditions one of these days.


----------

