EF 70-200mm f/2,8 L USM Versus EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM

[Tack Sharp]

Just a side note, why not consider a used 70-200mm f/2.8 IS original version? It's about the same price as either lens and has the fast aperture and IS, you will be able to shoot in much lower light levels with the fast aperture and IS. This would be my first choice.

Thanks for this John, I will explore this option too... I must be an amateur because I'm worrying about gear!

[thekingb]

If I chose the 70-300, am I going to regret not having the f/2.8? and if choose the 70-200 am I going to regret the extra reach and the IS?

Shooting with anything other than an f2.8 zoom pretty much always makes you regret not having the f2.8 option. But shooting the 70-200 f2.8 in many general purpose situations will make you regret not having a smaller, lighter lens with IS. And 200mm vs 300mm is a huge difference. Lens choices are always about compromise, but I personally wouldn't compromise on the IS.

If you are mostly looking for a general purpose zoom, then I wouldn't hesitate to go for the 70-300 L. But again, I'd consider the 70-200 f4 L IS too. In that comparison, the only relevant question is about focal length: do you really want/need the extra 100mm. I did, so that drove my decision.

Good luck!

[Tack Sharp]

If you are mostly looking for a general purpose zoom, then I wouldn't hesitate to go for the 70-300 L. But again, I'd consider the 70-200 f4 L IS too. In that comparison, the only relevant question is about focal length: do you really want/need the extra 100mm. I did, so that drove my decision.

Good luck!

Thank you every-one for your advise and suggestions... I really appreciate it. The 70-300 seems to be the right lens for me. Thanks again for the help.

[neuroanatomist]

I will be using it as a general purpose telephoto zoom as well as for portraiture. If I chose the 70-300, am I going to regret not having the f/2.8?

Hi Mark,

IMO, an f/4-5.6 lens doesn't deliver enough OOF blur for portraits, especially on an APS -C sensor. You'll only get decent OOF blur if you can put a *lot* of separation between your subject and the background. One option for portraits would be an 85mm f/1.8 - it's an excellent portrait lens on a crop body.

I agree that IS is a real benefit at the long end - unless you're shooting sports, you'll often be able to use much lower ISO with IS.

Personally, I like the combination of a slower zoom for general use with a fast prime for portraits and moving subjects in low light.

[Tack Sharp]

Hi Mark,

Personally, I like the combination of a slower zoom for general use with a fast prime for portraits and moving subjects in low light.

Thanks for this... I think this is good advise, makes a lot of sense.

[FastGass]

I concur with Neuro, I think you will regret not having f/2.8 if you do portriats more often. If you don't do potraites that often then you have to weigh fast apeture VS IS for your needs. Also, do you want to get more into something else such that you don't do such as portriature? If you don't do a lot right know it's something you might like down the road, that's something else to consider.

I still like my third option

Cheers,
John.

[HDNitehawk]

If you are thinking of buying the 70-300mm at B&H's $1,599 price. Add another $400.00 to it and get a refurbished 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II. You would have to wait until the come in stock again, but well worth the wait. It trumps all of your other options.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs...0051_275764_-1

The original version of the 70-200mm F/2.8 IS wouldn't be a bad option either.

Between the two lenses you named I would personally go for the 70-300mm. It is small, compact, has good IQ and has an additional 300mm. I have never owned either and base my opinion on how I know I would use the lens. I wouldn't buy it if my main purpose was to take portraits, but candids of the family outside it would be fine.

[thekingb]

Enjoy!