Canon 70-200 mm or 70-300 mm?

[in2thewild]

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

 

[in2thewild]

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

* before, not needle

 

[jaomul]

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.

 

[in2thewild]

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.

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

 

[jaomul]

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

 

[goodguy]

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!

 

[Braineack]

Personally I think with the ability of newer full frame cameras that a 70-200 f2.8 is often overkill.

Having sharp, beautifully rendering glass, that can shoot in any situation, is very overrated.

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.

 

[KenC]

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.

 

[zombiesniper]

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.

 

[Dao]

Or 70-200mm with a 1.4x TC.

 

[robbins.photo]

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.

 

[jaomul]

Personally I think with the ability of newer full frame cameras that a 70-200 f2.8 is often overkill.

Having sharp, beautifully rendering glass, that can shoot in any situation, is very overrated.

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.

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.

 

[Derrel]

Canon also makes a 70-300 DO, Diffractive Optics lens, which is incredibly compact for a 70-300 lens. It is way,way,way more compact than ANY other 70-200 or any 70-300mm lens because diffractive optics make lenses exceptionally compact for their focal length. Prices for the 70-300 DO on the used market have dropped pretty low. I saw one locally at such a tempting price I thought about buying it to try and flip it. This lens is 3.9 inches long, and just over 25 ounces.

This review covers most of (but not all) the potential Canon brand choices in the category, and is the main review they have for the 70-300mm L-series model.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Lens Review

Take-away? This is a red-ring L lens, with weather sealing, flourine coated front and rear elements, a VERY good close-up maximum image magnification (Better than the Canon 70-200/f.2 L IS USM Mark II.....) and very good image quality even on full-frame. This is a professionally-built lens and far above the con sumer-grade optics that Tamron and Nikon offer in a 70-300 lens. It also has excellent image stabilizer performance.

The guy that does these reviews is VERY knowledgeable, and he has a good summary of which lens for what reasons. In introducing that section he wrote:

"Canon has delivered some great telephoto L lenses in the last few years (Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM Lens and Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens for example), and I now add the 70-300 L IS to what I consider the "great" list. But, as I said in the beginning of this review, deciding which telephoto zoom lens is best now becomes more difficult."

 

[Braineack]

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.

i wasnt trying to say the f/4 was bad in any way.

 

[robbins.photo]

i wasnt trying to say the f/4 was bad in any way.

So, in other words, F4 is of the Debil.

Ok, got it. Lol.

Guess it sort of depends on the camera body as well, on my APS-C sensor D7100 there is a pretty noticeable difference between F/2.8 and F/4. Thanks to the smaller sensor even at F/2.8 I can shoot wide open and still maintain enough DOF for a lot of situations, and of course the extra light comes in real handy for keeping my ISO low enough to prevent a ton of noise. It also comes in handy for increased background separation on the APS-C

On a full frame camera I would imagine the F/2.8 probably wouldn't be quite as big a deal in those situations.