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

[Tack Sharp]

Hi Community,


I am looking at buying one of the following lenses and want to make the right decision: The EF 70-200mm f/2,8 L USM or the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 l IS USM


They both have their pros, the 70-300 has the extra reach as well as image stabilisation and much smaller, where as the 70 -200 has a faster and constant f/2.8 but NO image stabiliser. My main concern is image quality… I'm looking for the sharpest lens. I have checked the ISO 12233 Charts of the 2 lenses and the 70 - 300 is sharper especially wide open. Am I a fool to turn down a f/2.8 lens, though? And is the 70-300mm L worth the investment and is it as good as they say?

[thekingb]

I own the 70-300L and it is a fantastic lens - sharp wide open even at 300mm, where you're likely to spend a lot of time.

But we need to know the intended use to give you good advice. General all purpose telephoto zoom? The 70-300 hands down. Indoor sports? 70-200 hands down. Etc.

[Tack Sharp]

But we need to know the intended use to give you good advice. General all purpose telephoto zoom? The 70-300 hands down. Indoor sports? 70-200 hands down. Etc.

Thank you for your comments. Yes you right, I forgot to mention that this lens will be a "general all purpose telephoto zoom" and for taking portraits.

[Daniel Browning]

That comparison doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. It's like trying to decide between a dumptruck and a Ferrari. It's like comparing the 400mm f/5.6 and the 400mm f/2.8. They're just in a totally different class.

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to compare two things that are a lot more similar, such as the 70-200 f/4 L IS and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L? You'll find the 70-200 f/4 IS to be even sharper than the 70-300L (which is already quite sharp) in the overlapping range. Plus it's still up to a stop faster (though not two stops like the f/2.8) and still has IS. Since you said image quality (though that could mean just about anything) was your primary concern, I'd give the edge to the 70-200 f/4 L IS. The extra 100mm reach is the only area that the 70-200 loses out.

[Tack Sharp]

That comparison doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. It's like trying to decide between a dumptruck and a Ferrari. It's like comparing the 400mm f/5.6 and the 400mm f/2.8. They're just in a totally different class.

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to compare two things that are a lot more similar, such as the 70-200 f/4 L IS and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L? You'll find the 70-200 f/4 IS to be even sharper than the 70-300L (which is already quite sharp) in the overlapping range. Plus it's still up to a stop faster (though not two stops like the f/2.8) and still has IS. Since you said image quality (though that could mean just about anything) was your primary concern, I'd give the edge to the 70-200 f/4 L IS. The extra 100mm reach is the only area that the 70-200 loses out.

I'm comparing these two lenses because they are so different. 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? and if choose the 70-200 am I going to regret the extra reach and the IS? By Image Quality I mean "sharp" images as most zooms outside the "L" range seem to be soft especially racked out.

[thekingb]

It's like trying to decide between a dumptruck and a Ferrari.

I kinda like my dump truck. It's rugged and useful and gets the job done

But Daniel is right about the comparison. I actually sold the 70-200 L f/4 IS to get the 70-300. The only reason was to gain 100mm. That particular 70-200 is an incredible lens, especially considering the size, weight and cost.

[Daniel Browning]

I kinda like my dump truck. It's rugged and useful and gets the job done

Actually, I was thinking of the 70-200 f/2.8 as the dump truck: big and heavy. The 70-300L is small and agile by comparison.

[neuroanatomist]

Actually, I was thinking of the 70-200 f/2.8 as the dump truck: big and heavy. The 70-300L is small and agile by comparison.

But the 70-300L is slow, unlike the Ferrari.

[Dave Johnston]

Hard to carry mulch in a ferrari.

[FastGass]

I wouldn't consider comparing both lenses wide open a fair comparison, one is f/2.8 while the other is f/4-5.6. If you compare them at similar apertures then they are more or less the same, both winning and losing at different focal lengths. Both are sharp lenses and both can be used professionally.

The main differece is going to be your use and personal preferance. If you do a lot of low light with moving subjects or portriats the the 70-200mm f/2.8 is going to be a much better choice, and the f/2.8 aperture is going to give a brighter viewfinder and faster, more acurate and more AF points because of the f/2.8 aperture. If this is a walk in the park/landscape lens then the 70-300mm is a better choice. Lighter weight is also a plus, although I personally don't consider that a big deal.

Edit.

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.

John.