Canon 70-200 mm or 70-300 mm?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by in2thewild, Mar 15, 2016.

  1. in2thewild

    in2thewild No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    46
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Hello,
    I'm going to South America for three months this year and I would like to invest in another lens. I currently own a Canon D 600 and 50 mm, 16-35 mm L USM and 24-70 mm L USM lenses. I plan on upgrading to a FF camera this year needle I leave (which is why I bought these lenses).

    But my question is whether it's better to invest in the 70-200 mm or the 70-300 mm? I've read about them and it seems that the latter is good for travel photography. I'll get the L series whichever one I buy but have you used them? Do they have the same image quality more or less? What do you think?

    Many thanks


     
  2. in2thewild

    in2thewild No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    46
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    * before, not needle
     
  3. jaomul

    jaomul Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    5,715
    Likes Received:
    1,552
    Location:
    Cork Ireland
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Which 70-200? There all good but the f2.8 ones are big heavy and expensive.

    It all comes down to your needs but the 70-200 f4 models are great, and not to bulky either.

    Can't comment about the 70-300l other than what I've seen on the internet, and anyone that had it seems to really like it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. in2thewild

    in2thewild No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    46
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Hi,
    I was thinking of the 70-200 mm f/2.8 L USM. At the moment I would use it mostly for travel / landscape / nature photography and portraits.

    Thanks :)
     
  5. jaomul

    jaomul Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    5,715
    Likes Received:
    1,552
    Location:
    Cork Ireland
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Opinions vary on this one.

    Personally I think with the ability of newer full frame cameras that a 70-200 f2.8 is often overkill. Of course this is irrelevant if you need f2.8. The f4 models are so much lighter they'd likely be brought along more often.

    The fact that you were considering a 70-300 which is variable aperture from 4-5.6 leads me to think you are not completely set on the big f2.8.

    Long and short is they are all great, but weight and size matters. If you don't need f2.8, there are more convenient options
     
  6. goodguy

    goodguy Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,555
    Likes Received:
    1,120
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Used to own a 70-300mm lens, sold it the moment I got a 70-200mm 2.8
    Yes I do miss the extra 100mm from time to time but then the 70-200mm 2.8 is such a wonderful versatile lens I wouldn't replace it!
     
  7. Braineack

    Braineack Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2013
    Messages:
    13,074
    Likes Received:
    5,534
    Location:
    NoVA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Having sharp, beautifully rendering glass, that can shoot in any situation, is very overrated. :1219:

    the difference in weight over the f/4 is a pound, and size, an inch longer -- i dont see that making or breaking you, both are big substantial lenses.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2016
  8. KenC

    KenC Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    1,472
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    As always, it depends on your priorities. I have the 70-300 L and wouldn't part with it. I often use it at or near the long end, so a 70-200 wouldn't do it for me. I don't mind the smaller aperture because I don't often try to blur out the background entirely and you can isolate the subject fairly well at f5.6 at 300 or ca. f5 t 200. Someone with the opposite needs obviously would go with one of the 70-200 lenses.
     
  9. zombiesniper

    zombiesniper Furtographer Extraordinaire! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2015
    Messages:
    8,251
    Likes Received:
    5,993
    Location:
    Angus, Ontario
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    The real question is do you need the extra 100mm reach? If you think you may then 70-300mm. If you're more interested in portraiture with silky blown out backgrounds or lower light performance then the 70-200 F2.8.
    Your want/need is what should drive this purchase as long as IQ is comparable.
     
  10. Dao

    Dao No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,423
    Likes Received:
    462
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Or 70-200mm with a 1.4x TC.
     
  11. robbins.photo

    robbins.photo Yup, It's The Zoo Guy Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    11,518
    Likes Received:
    4,786
    Location:
    Louisville, Nebraksa - United States
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I'm a big fan of my 70-200mm F/2.8. I carry both a 1.4x and 2x tc, so I have the ability to shoot 70-200 mm at 2.8, 98-280 at F/4 or 140-400mm at F/5.6.

    I've found this gives me a lot of flexibility without the need to carry a lot of extra lenses.
     
  12. jaomul

    jaomul Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    5,715
    Likes Received:
    1,552
    Location:
    Cork Ireland
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit


    The word overkill may be strong. I do think though that not everybody needs an f2.8 zoom, and in canon speak the 70-200 f4 are generally considered as good as the f2.8 apart from the coveted "2.8" bit.
     

Share This Page