# 70-200/70-300



## barbara (Apr 25, 2012)

Hi !
I am not expert and i need one information
I have CANON 550D
Somebody can help me about 2 lens
I am interest for one of two 70-200 f/4 L ISUSM and 70-300 L
Witch difference is
Thank you
Sorry my English


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 25, 2012)

I have researched these two lens until my eyes bled, and finally chose the 70-300L.

Why?

It is more compact so easier to travel with, almost the same price and yet you get more distance, newer from memory. But ultimately it was all the positive reviews, the compact size and that little extra reach which persuaded me.

Here is a good review of the 70-300L on canonrumors:

http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/

For me the only downside was the tripod collar is not included, and a better quality bag would have been nice for the money being paid. I am still very happy with it and those two issues were definitely not deal breakers.


----------



## Steve Campbell (Apr 25, 2012)

There's no tripod collar with the 70-200 f4 either, but it's not so heavy that it's a must have. The 70-200 f4 IS very sharp, very light and compact, has a constant apperture etc. I've heard the 70-300 L is nice also, but I have only used the 70-200, which is a super piece of glass. Cheaper to buy new and much easier to find used. You can use 1.4 teleconverters on the 70-200 f4 but not the 70-300L.


----------



## preppyak (Apr 25, 2012)

Steve Campbell said:


> There's no tripod collar with the 70-200 f4 either, but it's not so heavy that it's a must have. The 70-200 f4 IS very sharp, very light and compact, has a constant apperture etc. I've heard the 70-300 L is nice also, but I have only used the 70-200, which is a super piece of glass. Cheaper to buy new and much easier to find used.


Yep, the 70-200 is fairly easy to find used, as a lot of people upgraded to the newest 70-200 f/2.8. 

The Digital Picture Comparison shows the 70-200 as being slightly sharper across the frame, but it's subtle and probably not enough to be visible in actual pictures. And, you get 200mm f/4 instead of 200mm f/5. But, if you think you'll use 200-300 a lot, then the 70-300L might be more worth it.


> You can use 1.4 teleconverters on the 70-200 f4 but not the 70-300L.


Well, a 1.4 teleconverter basically turns it into the 70-300L; you get 280mm f/5.6. So, I'd say that's ultimately a moot point, especially because I'd rather not use a TC if possible


----------



## K-amps (Apr 25, 2012)

They are both very close in sharpness, price, usability, weight, color, snob value and L'ness.

However the 70-300L will give you an extra 100mm, making your 550D and 70-300 equivalent to 480mm with all the L sharpness and goodness.

If you feel later on you need a faster lens, go with the 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii, but by then you will "know" you need it.

The 70-300L is a great all round lens.


----------



## birdman (Apr 26, 2012)

I had the same question. I own the old 70-300 IS and it really lacks IQ at the long end. After watching a youtube of FroKnowsPhoto review of the 70-300L he raises some serious questions. 

In the video he is snapping shots of a kid's soccer game. While the pics are tac sharp and the lens is very good in quality, the slow aperture at longer distances limits the amount you can "blow out" the backgrounds. 

Both lens will have similar IQ in my opinion. A little different purpose though. I am going with the 70-200 F/4.0L because: 1) seems better for portraits (faster aperture for DOF effects) and 2) ability to use TC.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 27, 2012)

birdman said:


> In the video he is snapping shots of a kid's soccer game. While the pics are tac sharp and the lens is very good in quality, the slow aperture at longer distances limits the amount you can "blow out" the backgrounds. Both lens will have similar IQ in my opinion. A little different purpose though. I am going with the 70-200 F/4.0L because: 1) seems better for portraits (faster aperture for DOF effects) and 2) ability to use TC.



It's fine if the 70-200/4 fits your needs, but I'd advise you to really think this through, the 70-300L while being more expensive and having no internal zoom mechanism has a very good size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination and tradeoff. And the points you made are wrong:

The 70-300L is [email protected], which isn't really a difference to f4 at ok lighting. For portraits @70-100mm, you might need a faster lens like 2.8+! And even f5.6 is quite enough for a bokeh effect if there is some space behind the object, in fact at tele ranges the dof is extremely thin that even @f5.6 often what you're shooting is not completely in focus.

And: The 70-300L can use a Kenko TC, I've got the 1.4x one, good iq, but obviously af degrades at f8 so tracking is next to impossible. But it's nice to get to 420mm (= 672mm on crop) for some shots. For me, 200mm for outdoors would be not enough, actually I find myself shooting @300mm most of the time. And for indoor shots a prime or 70-200/2.8 it is. I guess that's why a lot of 70-200/4 are sold.


----------



## swrightgfx (Apr 27, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> For me the only downside was the tripod collar is not included, and a better quality bag would have been nice for the money being paid. I am still very happy with it and those two issues were definitely not deal breakers.


http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Tripod-Mount-Ring-Collar-II-W-Canon-70-200mm-f-4L-USM-Flocked-SSW-NIB-/380425803607?pt=AU_TripodsMonopods&hash=item5893251757


----------



## Wideopen (Apr 27, 2012)

Id personally get the 70-300 for the crop body. Longer reach always comes in handy.


----------



## birtembuk (Apr 27, 2012)

You may have as many opinions as there are posts here ...  So I'll shoot mine and I'd go for the 70-200. For sure both are fine lenses. So, it's a matter of how much reach you want to have. But don't forget, between 200mm and 300mm, though it looks a lot of millimeters, the difference is not that huge. A bit like comparing photos made with 50mm and 75mm. You would not say that the difference would blow your mind. The 70-200/4 is a bit cheaper, quite lighter, less bulky and a tad faster. On a 550D, the 70-300 might prove to be a bit heavy/cumbersome. Well, my 2 cts anyway.


----------



## pwp (Apr 27, 2012)

You'll have to make your own call here. Both lenses are brilliant and you'd be happy with either. If your budget is strong enough, take a look at the 70-200 f/2.8. Personally I'd go for even a pre-owned f/2.8 over and above the two lenses you've mentioned. It's a LOT of photographers favourite lens and a lot of pros main money maker.

Paul Wright


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Apr 27, 2012)

birdman said:


> I had the same question. I own the old 70-300 IS and it really lacks IQ at the long end. After watching a youtube of FroKnowsPhoto review of the 70-300L he raises some serious questions.
> 
> In the video he is snapping shots of a kid's soccer game. While the pics are tac sharp and the lens is very good in quality, the slow aperture at longer distances limits the amount you can "blow out" the backgrounds.
> 
> Both lens will have similar IQ in my opinion. A little different purpose though. I am going with the 70-200 F/4.0L because: 1) seems better for portraits (faster aperture for DOF effects) and 2) ability to use TC.



I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L, along with the 1.4x tele-extender III. 

Couple of comments on the above:

The tele-extender is going to slow down your AF by 50% and you will notice this on the OP's 550D. While faster cameras like the 5D3 and the 1Dx can compensate due to their AF systems speed, I can say the combination of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS rev2 and the 1.4x tele-extender rev3 on the 7D will at times drift off an AF lock when shooting sports like equestrian jumping or professional cycling. It's not bad, but it does happen, at 8 fps I would say 20% of images can be soft on the focus with this combo. However, when it's locked, the images are far sharper than the older version combination of that lens and TC.

On the 5D3 the slowness isn't really much of an impact due to the speed of the AF system in the first place, but I've had the 5D3 for a month not and have not shot that combo much. Am waiting on a 1Dx, so I can't comment on that combo.

On the _"blow out the background" _comment regarding the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L, at full zoom focal length, while you're not going to get the kind of bokeh you would see at f/4 or at f/2.8 with the pricier 70-200mm, the DOF at 300mm, f/5.6 with a target 25 yards away (75 ft, or about 23 meters) on a crop body is 4.1 feet (about 1.3 meters). 

To put that in perspective, that is shooting at an effective 480mm and reaching out to the middle of a football field. That 4.1ft DOF isn't as much as you think it is and you can blow out or blur the background very acceptably on the opposite sidelines. 

Performance wise, the 70-300mm does well, it's obviously lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8 and thus easier to manage, the IS performs very well, it has a LOCK switch to stop the lens from being able to zoom or creep if the weight causes it to do so when hanging down. It's fast, the AF is zippy on the 7D and the 5D2 and 5D3.

*Negatives on the 70-300mm:
*
1) slower aperture - yes, if you need the extra stops, this won't be the right lens. However, I've shot this at weddings and receptions with and without flash at ISO's up to 3200 on a 7D without issue. The reach on a 7D in a church or outdoor wedding outweighs the slower aperture when you need focal length.

2) The zoom and manual focus rings are reversed on this lens when compared to the 70-200, the 24-70, the 24-105, 16-35, etc..... In other words, the far ring is the zoom, the near ring is the manual focus. This is frustrating, for one, it breaks what you've learned to do with the zoom ring as you find yourself reaching for the wrong ring at times. Second, it makes you extend your arm further from your body, leading to a more unstable stance when shooting. I like to keep my arm close and tight to solidify my stance. On the 70-300 you have to move your arm further out to handle the zoom ring. It's a PITA, I have no idea why Canon did that. It's the #1 reason I could dump the lens if a new 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS L were to appear.

3) The hood, filter mount and lens extension....the hood "looks" cheap....no fancy tulip design, it's a straight up barrel. It just looks dumpy...but it works. The filter mount is 67mm which means it does not fit the filters I use with the 70-200mm or several other lenses I have...so if you use polarizers or ND's, just know you might be buying more to fit it. Note the lens is not internal focus and extends 2.11" at 300mm full zoom.

4) Variable aperture - you need to account for that in your exposures, especially when shooting in manual mode and tracking/zooming in-out at the same time. The lens max apertures by natural focal length (unadjusted for crop 1.6x body) are:

f/4.0: 70-103mm
f/4.5: 104-154mm
f/5.0: 155-228mm
f/5.6: 229-300mm

Overall, if you can accept the slower AF of the tele-extender combo and more chance of blowing the focus lock, along with the additional but very slight softness it adds (assuming you have the rev3 extender which is way better than the rev2) I would go with the70-200 f/4 and extender....you have greater flexibility.

If you want a solid, light weight, and sharp solution, the 70-300mm is a great choice, assuming you can deal with the reversed focus/zoom rings (god I hate that!!!), this is a great choice.

Frankly, I bought it to use on the 5D3 and the 1Dx in order to recover some of the focal length lost on a full frame body, when compared with the reach the 7D had with the 70-200mm. I'm selling my 5D2 and my 7D once I have the 1Dx in and I've become comfortable with the 5D3. As such, I wanted to recover some reach I'll lose when the 7D is gone, and I didn't want to have to rely on the 1.4x extender on the tele-zooms all the time. I didn't want the current 100-400mm and with no new version of that in sight yet, it came down to either this lens of the 300mm f/4 IS L prime and the 1.4x tele-extender III that I own. The zoom proved to be much more flexible for the same cost and overall sharpness.

Hope this helps you out and gives you some solid info to decide. Above all, if you can, go try one out in a store and see how you feel about the reversed focus/zoom rings....as I said, if a new 100-400mm f/4-5.6 IS L comes out and does not have this dumb reversal, that would be the one reason I would sell this lens, however I would have to believe a new version of that lens would run about $2600 and not be available until 18 months after announcing it, given Canon's recent trends.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 27, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> Above all, if you can, go try one out in a store and see how you feel about the reversed focus/zoom rings....



I can agree to everything that LightWorks wrote - and indeed how bad the "reversed" Nikon-line zoom ring feels is a personal matter, I simply don't notice it at all. One last comment about the 70-300L: For me, the main issue was to overcome the feeling "Hey, I could get a lens with this zoom range and variable aperture for 1000 bucks less!". But the better af does make a difference, it's weather-sealed and the main advantage is that the L is sharp and usable wide open even at 300mm, so you can crop as long as sensor noise allows it.


----------



## K-amps (Apr 27, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> 3) The hood, filter mount and lens extension....the hood "looks" cheap....no fancy tulip design, it's a straight up barrel. It just looks dumpy...but it works. The filter mount is 67mm which means it does not fit the filters I use with the 70-200mm or several other lenses I have...so if you use polarizers or ND's, just know you might be buying more to fit it. Note the lens is not internal focus and extends 2.11" at 300mm full zoom.



Great write up: On the above quote there's an easy and cheap solution:

http://www.amazon.com/67-mm-77-mm-Camera-Filter-Adapter/dp/B005EVQ0MM


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

Both are great lens 

- aimed at different users and different price points

Question is:

Do you want a lightweight lens with the extra reach to 300mm or do you want a heavyweight by fast lens?


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 27, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Great write up: On the above quote there's an easy and cheap solution



It might be cheap, but it's not 100% easy: You cannot take off or put on the lens hood when the filter extender is screwed on, and putting on a filter through the lens hood barrel might is a hassle. I have a 67mm filter and thus didn't try it, but it looks as 77mm ones might just fit into the hood. I guess 82mm is too large, or you have to shoot w/o hood (bad idea because of flares and less lens protection). Maybe someone who has actually tried it can tell for sure?


----------



## K-amps (Apr 27, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Great write up: On the above quote there's an easy and cheap solution
> ...



I am 77mm or below all the way... that's one reason I chose my lenses...


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 28, 2012)

And remember, while we are all calling the 70-300L a lightweight, or lighter than the 70-200, at 1kg it still gives your arm a nice little workout if you are hand holding it for substantial lengths of time.

One other thing I am not overly happy about with the 70-300L, and it is a very small issue, is that you cannot lock or unlock the zoom if the hood is reversed. It only matters from time to time (like when you are preparing to pack the camera away and suddenly you need to take a shot of something), but it would have been great if you could lock and unlock from an area that the hood does not cover when reversed.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 28, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> And remember, while we are all calling the 70-300L a lightweight, or lighter than the 70-200, at 1kg it still gives your arm a nice little workout if you are hand holding it for substantial lengths of time.
> 
> One other thing I am not overly happy about with the 70-300L, and it is a very small issue, is that you cannot lock or unlock the zoom if the hood is reversed. It only matters from time to time (like when you are preparing to pack the camera away and suddenly you need to take a shot of something), but it would have been great if you could lock and unlock from an area that the hood does not cover when reversed.



Use a harness to give your arm a rest when not shooting


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 28, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> And remember, while we are all calling the 70-300L a lightweight, or lighter than the 70-200, at 1kg it still gives your arm a nice little workout if you are hand holding it for substantial lengths of time.



For me, that worked out very fast: When I got the 70-300L, I thought when combined with a flash this is the absolute max weight I'm willing to hold dangling from my hand for an extended period of time. But I have to say after ~2 month of practice, I hardly notice it anymore - so I guess even with the 70-200/2.8 this effect would be there later on.


----------



## K-amps (Apr 28, 2012)

expatinasia said:


> And remember, while we are all calling the 70-300L a lightweight, or lighter than the 70-200, at 1kg it still gives your arm a nice little workout if you are hand holding it for substantial lengths of time.
> 
> One other thing I am not overly happy about with the 70-300L, and it is a very small issue, is that you cannot lock or unlock the zoom if the hood is reversed. It only matters from time to time (like when you are preparing to pack the camera away and suddenly you need to take a shot of something), but it would have been great if you could lock and unlock from an area that the hood does not cover when reversed.



Looks like you are not happy with the lens... curious, have you taken pics swith it? What are your thoughts.


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 28, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Looks like you are not happy with the lens... curious, have you taken pics swith it? What are your thoughts.



It should not sound that way, perhaps I expressed myself badly as I am very happy with the lens.

I mentioned the weight as the OP is called Barbara so weight may or may not be an issue for her. Either way it is something else for her to consider.

As for the other issues I mentioned they are all super minor: poor lens bag, lack of tripod collar at purchase, and a desire to have the lock switch somewhere the hood does not cover when it is reversed. All super, super minor issues.

Yes, I love the lens.


----------



## cezargalang (Apr 29, 2012)

I have tried the 70-200 F4 IS USM and it's a very good, lightweight lens. I have yet to try the 70-300 L, and the reviews really make me want to try it. You can't go wrong with either lens. Something to consider when you buy is the focal length and aperture, is 200 f4 good enough for you or do you need a 300 5.6? 

Also shooting in low light, where the f4 would have a small advantage. 

I can't think of anything else, i hope this helps. ;D


----------



## wockawocka (Apr 29, 2012)

I vote 70-200.

Both are really sharp lenses but I prefer a constant aperture. You wouldn't want to zoom in quickly to something only to find that the settings change. But I do shoot in manual...but even in an auto mode in the day at 300mm you'll need to be around ISO400-800 as the minimum aperture is 4.5 at 300mm?

I have had the 70-300 and I liked it a lot, size mainly, but the lens hood doesn't fit compactly over the lens and you can't use teleconvertors. Whereas you could get the 70-200 and a kenko 1.4x at be at 280mm.

You have to wonder if you'd ever use the extra reach that a crop body affords you, I mean, 480mm reach, that's LONG and totally useless unless you're shooting wildlife, or the moon. The reason it's rubbish is because of compression. The longer the focal length the more atmospheric interference (mist, smog, pollution) there is between you and your subject that gets compressed, it doesn't go away, this can make your images a bit dull.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 29, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> I vote 70-200.
> 
> Both are really sharp lenses but I prefer a constant aperture. You wouldn't want to zoom in quickly to something only to find that the settings change. But I do shoot in manual...but even in an auto mode in the day at 300mm you'll need to be around ISO400-800 as the minimum aperture is 4.5 at 300mm?
> 
> ...



300mm on crop makes for good street shooting. Just because it has 300 at the long end doen't mean you have to use it all the time

The 70-300L is as sharp as the 70-200 up to 200 -so why saddle yourself with the extra weight? I makes a great portrait lens at 70 @ f/4 - plenty of contrast there.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 29, 2012)

cezargalang said:


> Also shooting in low light, where the f4 would have a small advantage.



I don't think [email protected] is a lot of difference to [email protected] (70-300L) ... both are not low-light lenses, everyone who gets one of these has to face it, at least with a crop sensor because with the 5d3 you can just use a higher iso setting.



wockawocka said:


> Both are really sharp lenses but I prefer a constant aperture. I have had the 70-300 and I liked it a lot, size mainly, but the lens hood doesn't fit compactly over the lens and you can't use teleconvertors. Whereas you could get the 70-200 and a kenko 1.4x at be at 280mm.
> 
> You have to wonder if you'd ever use the extra reach that a crop body affords you, I mean, 480mm reach, that's LONG and totally useless unless you're shooting wildlife, or the moon. The reason it's rubbish is because of compression. The longer the focal length the more atmospheric interference (mist, smog, pollution) there is between you and your subject that gets compressed, it doesn't go away, this can make your images a bit dull.



I can understand that many people want and have use for a constant min. aperture. But your other points are wrong: The 70-300L does work w/ a Kenko tc, though at af 8 - for the 70-200L I'd get the Canon because of weather sealing. And atmospheric interference doesn't really matter when you shoot a bird that's sitting a few meters in front of you - I don't think people use their tele lenses to shoot something at the other end of the horizon (480mm does nice sunset shots, though).


----------



## wockawocka (Apr 29, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > Both are really sharp lenses but I prefer a constant aperture. I have had the 70-300 and I liked it a lot, size mainly, but the lens hood doesn't fit compactly over the lens and you can't use teleconvertors. Whereas you could get the 70-200 and a kenko 1.4x at be at 280mm.
> ...



760 grams (70-200) vs 1050 grams (70-300) according the Canon.

Lighter, constant aperture and if he needs the reach he can use a TC.
A lot of togs get all romantic about reach when most rarely use anything past 200mm.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 29, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> A lot of togs get all romantic about reach when most rarely use anything past 200mm.



This really depends on what you're shooting, and while it's correct that 300mm is not that much as 200mm, but as I already wrote I find myself either @70mm or @300mm all the time because the latter starts to count as a quick macro replacement. And with a 1.4 tc that doesn't drag down iq too much it's 672mm (300x1.4x1.6) in comparison to 448mm (200x1.4x1.6) on a crop.

Concerning the weight: The length of the lens is a major factor here since this creates the torsion you're feeling in the wrist. That's why a 70-200/2.8 feels much more heavy to me than the actual difference to a 70-300L is, you can feel this effect with the 70-200/4 to a lesser extent, too.

I'd advise anyone looking for a tele lens to rent it first to see if the zoom range fits one's needs. Of course everything is expandable with a tc, but apart from lower light this slows down af significantly. But the real issue with a tc is the need to put it on and off near the sensor - when being outdoors, this is bound to get dirt inside the body, and it's tiresome to begin with. 

But I'm really not a 70-300L fanboy just because I've got it, I'd exchange it for a 70-200/2.8is2 for free anytime, and since there are many used 70-200/4 available, of course it's a good choice too.


----------



## chemistone (Apr 29, 2012)

I've bought the 70-300L on a special occasion with 200 euro discount, very close to 1000 euro, a price of which I feel is right for the lens. It is the first superzoom I own, my father has a 70-200L without IS. The 200 euro discount was a safety net for me, when I would not use the lens that much, I could sell it for about 1000euros and have a limited loss. Am I gonna sell it? No! I like it a lot. I can now make the shots I previously missed (in the zoo, streetphotos, from my kids off guard, etc) I feel 200mm would be too short for most of them. As the previous poster I will exchange it for a 70-200L 2.8IS MkII for free . I like the size and the weight of it, I can easily carry it for a day in the zoo. I like the reach, I like the sharpness. However I also understand now why people want fast zooms. Backgrounds are nicely blurred, when there is enough space between the background and the subject, but could be better. 
As with all lenses, it is a compromise between weight, range, light sensitivity and picture quality and it is a very good compromise. Could it have been better, yes. A 70-300L 2.8 IS for the same price and with the same weight would be nice. 
A friend of me borrowed it for a day comparing it to his 70-200L IS F4 lens and he liked my a lot. The best picture of his 70-200L was marginally better than the best pic of my 70-300L, furthermore the 70-300L produced pictures that were comparable or slightly better than his 70-200LIS F4. Basicly it is a draw, you cannot go wrong with either of the two lenses. Do you need the extra reach of the 300L or do you need the F4 capability of the 70-200L and do you have the extra money for the 300?


----------



## plutonium10 (May 2, 2012)

I have the 70-300 L and I love it except for the zoom and focus ring placement. You get used to it after a while but the focus ring on my copy turns quite freely so it's easy to knock a picture out of focus if you aren't careful. I had lots of OOF shots the first day I got it and was really concerned that the AF was missing 20% of the time! Then I realized that I had been inadvertantly changing focus just by brushing the MF ring, so I changed the way I grip the lens and problem solved. As mentioned, this lens is heavier than the 70-200 f4, but I have tried both and it helps that the 70-300's weight is closer to the camera since it's a shorter lens. If you don't need faster than 5.6, it's an all around great lens with good optical quality, robust build and fast focusing.


----------

