Confused between EF 70-200/f2.8 L and EF 70-300/f3.5-5.6 L

<p>Dear All,<br>

I have EF 24-105/f4 L, 50 mm/f1.8, EF-S 18-55 mm (kit lens), EF-S 55-250 mm (Kit lens) for my T2i. Firstly, I would admit that I am not a pro. I am just stepping into DSLR photography, and am enjoying it. Lets say addicted to it in matter of 3 months. <br>

I want to purchase a good telephoto lens because I am not happy with my kit lens. It is awfully slow to focus. I am confused between EF 70-200 mn/f2.8L and EF 70-300 mm/f3.5-5.6L. I have read great reviews about 70-200 mm and it gives a flexibility to shoot with fixed aperture (as low as f2.8)... However, I have read in one of the landscape photography books - to get good results in landscape photography it is prudent to shoot at f6 - f8 for crisp results. <br>

Most of the members have a wealth of experience of capturing great moments... What would you recommend? An honest opinion and advise will be appreciated.<br>

Regards,<br>

Gurpreet.</p>

<p>Gurpreet, if you're not planning on doing much shooting below f/4, which you seem to imply in your post, I wouldn't get either of the lenses you're considering, but pick up a 70-200/4 L IS instead. It delivers peerless image quality for a zoom, and is relatively compact and lightweight for walkabout shooting.</p>

<p>But if you're intent on getting one of the f/2.8's, the 70-200/2.8 L IS II would be the one I'd recommend. Bear in mind, however, that it'll be toilsome to lug it around all day.</p>

<p>I would second the suggestion on the 70-200mm f4 L IS as being an excellent zoom if you don't need the f2.8 maxium aperture. Are you going to be using a zoom telephoto for landscape photos? I would think the lenses you already have with the short focal lengths would work better.</p>

<p>Slow down, big fella'.</p>

<p>You already have a lens that covers this focal length range in your fine EFS 55-250mm lens. While there are lenses that offer different and <em>perhaps</em> better features, you will not suddenly see your photographs become technically better by throwing money at this.</p>

<p>I like to say that if you can't get good photographs out of the EFS kit lens level of gear, you are not going to get good photographs by getting a bunch of L lenses. And until you get a bunch of shooting under your belt, there is a very good chance that you'll make quite a few mistakes in your gear purchases. Buying what other people tell you to get or what salespeople tell you you need - when you don't understand what you need and why and how it relates to your specific approach to photography - is a fine way to spend a ton of money on the wrong stuff.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

I also agree with the others. All the 70-200Ls and 70-300L are optically excellent. But if you do not need

the fast 2.8 for sports or wildlife, the f4 IS would be my choice since it is much lighter and less bulky.

 

f8 is recommended since the majority of lenses are at their sharpest at about 2 f stops from their maximum

aperture. However all of these lenses are likely very sharp at their maximum aperture.

<p>In general, zoom lenses are not quite as good as prime lenses, but some are close. However, again generally, zoom lenses of wider overall ranges are not as good as those that stay within up to about 3 times the short end--eg 70-200 is going to be better at the extremes than 70-300mm. The more ground covered by a lens, the more compromises.</p>

<p>As to a lens that is say 5.6 versus 2.8, that is two stops less light you have to focus with and most cameras do better the more light they have--as do your eyes. In fact, with top cameras, any f-stop less than 2.8 and you lose some of the features built in that aid in focus--they don't work past f2.8.</p>

<p>That said, I don't think for an amateur that the f4 is a bad choice of a lens both for economy or quality. I don't know the 70-300, but I would be surprised if the quality is as good as the 70-200 f4 lens regardless.</p>

<p>The main reason for stopping down in landscape is two fold. Generally you are looking for increased depth of field and second, the sweet part of the lens--less diffraction--is generally in the middle of the f-stop range. Diffraction renders the image less sharp and is an optical property that does seem to be more pronounced with the digital sensor and the way it receives light than say with film--but exists with both.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your honest opinions. I truly appreciate each and every feedback.</p>

I would not necessarily associate f4 for use with amateurs. Art Wolfe routinely uses the 70-200 f4 IS lens.

 

http://blog.artwolfe.com/2009/01/equipment/

<p>I would definitely recommend the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens as a great general purpose telephoto lens. I consider the 70-200mm f/4L IS as one of the finest lenses that I have ever used. And in over fifty years of photography, much of it professional, that includes a heck of a lot of glass.<br /> I use my f/4L IS as half of my all-around general and travel photography duo of lenses on two 1.6x cameras; the 40D and 7D. The 7D has replaced my 30D with which I shot paired with the 40D for years. The other half of that lens duo is a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. This is the finest combination of lenses I have ever had the pleasure of working with.<br /> I would recommend the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens to anyone who needs a top-line general purpose telephoto lens which is light enough to carry virtually anywhere. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens is also terrific (especially the Mark II model) but it is a LOT HEAVIER and is more than I wish to carry around during 8-12 hour walk-around shooting days. I can carry the f/4L IS and a second 1.6x camera at the weight of the f/2.8L (series) lens alone.<br /> The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens, by virtue of its newly designed rounded aperture blades is quite a nice portrait lens along with being a great general purpose telephoto. It also accepts a 1.4x TC quite decently, turning it into a 98-280mm f/5.6 lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You already have a lens that covers this focal length range in your fine EFS 55-250mm lens. While there are lenses that offer different and <em>perhaps</em> better features, you will not suddenly see your photographs become technically better by throwing money at this.<br />I like to say that if you can't get good photographs out of the EFS kit lens level of gear, you are not going to get good photographs by getting a bunch of L lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True enough, but Gurpreet isn't asking for advice on how to improve his photography, but merely on improving his tools. Specifically, he's looking acquire a telelphoto zoom with faster AF than the one he has now. To wit, he says:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I want to purchase a good telephoto lens because I am not happy with my kit lens. It is awfully slow to focus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's so bad about a novice wanting better gear than he has? Why should better gear be reserved for pros? Can't can a beginning photographer benefit from it as well?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 70-200 f4 IS has been around for a while and is much loved. It is pretty ubiquitous and because of that many sing its praises, the 70-300 L IS is much newer with far fewer users out there so far. However many of the knowledgeable reviewers are suggesting the 70-300 is every bit as good as the 70-200 and a good bit more practical.</p>

<p>Here is one very favourable <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/">review of the 70-300 L</a> by a stalwart 70-200 user.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your honest opinions. The kit lenses are great and give me excellent results. But there have been times when I missed my shot because my lens did not focus in time. I do find myself using manual focus many times to take pictures. I love my 24-105 mm... very fast and gives me better colors than the kit ones. I have noticed that 24-105 is sharper than the kit ones. So, I thought...why not get a nice telephoto lens. </p>

<p>I recommend the Canon 100-400L. Although its been around a while the reach and image quality are amazing.</p>

<p>100-400 is a good choice too. The so called F4 set (17-40, 24-105, 100-400) is good for both FF and cropped body, for amateurs at least.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, I have read in one of the landscape photography books - to get good results in landscape photography it is prudent to shoot at f6 - f8 for crisp results. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>What aperture you use depends on how you want the image to look. If you want a lot of depth of field then you want narrow depth of field. Depending on what you want you might end up going to F22. Other times you might want less depth of field and decide to use the lens fully open. </p>

<p>Other people say that you should only use wide angle lenses for landscape photography which is also not true. The word landscape only describes what your are taking a picture off. It doesn't say anything about the equipment or how you set up the equipment. </p>

<p>If you click on G Dan Mitchell's name in his earlier post you will find a link to his blog and you will find many examples of landscape photos takes at large apertures and with wide or telephoto lenses. </p>

<p>I would also go with Dan's advice and wait until you have a better idea as to what you need. Otherwise you may spend a lot of money for a very good lens that spends most of its time on shelf rather than the camera. while any canon 70-200 lens or the 70-300 would be technicallly better than what you have now, you won't see a big difference in the quality of the photo. Additionally there are other lens options out there that might be better suited for your needs than the 70-300 or 70-200. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I recommend the Canon 100-400L. Although its been around a while the reach and image quality are amazing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True but the 100-400 is a very heavy lens and on longer walks I tend to leave it behind because of the weight. For that reason I also have a 70-200 for longer trips when weight is an issue. While it may seem strange to have both the 100-400 and the 70-200 after a couple of years I found there were very specific times when I needed the 100-400 and many other times when a 70-700 was the better choice. So I ended up with both.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Gurpreet,<br>

I used to own the EF 70-200L f4 (non IS version).<br />That lens rocks and is a lightweight to carry around compared to the other tele L lenses.<br>

<br />But when I replaced my 20d with a 5d mkII I also wanted to keep my reach.<br />So sold the 70-200 and bought that EF 70-300 f4-5,6L IS.<br>

<br />It is heavier but still doable for trips in my opinion : <br />weight is 1/3 more than a EF 70-200 f4L IS, and 2/3 of a EF 70-200 f2,8L IS II.<br />But it is alos less long then the EF 70-200 f4L so easier to find a bag <br />where you can fit the camera and lens into without exchanging the lens.<br />Can fit it in the main compartment of my Kata 3N1-20 together with my EF 24-70 f2,8L and a EF 50 f1,8<br />(with all the hoods for the zooms included). The EF 70-200 f4 L would not fit inside this bag.<br>

<br />Still have the same smile on my face when I see the pictures from it.<br />Would not be able to tell the diference. Colour and so on is excellent if you ask me. Also rasor sharp.<br>

I ruled out the EF 70-200 f2,8 IS because of the weight.<br />The EF 70-300L was just acceptable for me.</p>

<p>But go to a store and try them both out an a body how they feel.</p>

 

Thank you all.

<p>The most incredible lens I have purchased is the Tamron 70-300 VC. I shoot with a Canon 5D Mark II and own several L-series primes and the 17-40 F4L zoon. However, my favortie lenses are the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and Tamron 70-300 VC. I have been shooting long enough to know I don't have to spend all my hard earned money on a lens just because it has a red stripe when even I can't tell the difference when comparing photos from them side by side. i can however tell a big difference in the money I saved. Also, L-series lenses are best when shot at the max apertures. I.E. I only shoot with my Canon 85 1.2L when I absolutely need to shoot at 1.2 otherwise I use my Tamron 28-75, Sigma 70-200 F2.8 or if I need the reach or image stablization my Tamron 70-300. The Tamron 28 and Sigma have closer focusing distances the 70-300 is super sharp and has stablization. By the way I purchased the 24-105 F4 L to upgrade my Tamron and took it back after only one week the distortion or horzontal and vertical lines plus the vignetting at 24MM was horrible and not what I would have expected from an L-series lens. <br>

Shoot a paned window or an open horizon you will see what I mean. Just because it has an L doesn't mean it will make your photos better. By the way faster lenses focus faster. Your kit lens is probably slow to focus in low light. Getting any fast lens I.E. Sigma 70-200 F2.8 will focus faster.</p>