lindmike

I presently have the EF70-300 lens. What would be the advantage of purchasing the 70-200 2.8, other than the ability to shoot in lower light conditions? Thanks for the input.

muggins88 Loc: Inverness, Florida

2.8 will let in lots more light for the pic and once you use an L lens, you will never go back.

lindmike

Thank for your input, mugging 88. I forgot to mention I shoot with a 5D Marklll.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Also;
#1 faster focussing.
#2 weather sealed
#3 Better IQ, especially at the wider apertures.
#4 Better image stabilisation.

I own a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens and a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens and the 70-200 runs rings around the 70-300 both mechanically and optically.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

lindmike - the 70-300L IS is an excellent lens although I'm not sure of that's the lens you reference. The 70-200 L IS II is one of Canon's best lenses ever. In Canon's recent new releases, I've read this is the only zoom lens to keep other than the 100-400 II. Although, it is a matter of funds and needs and many have kept the vI of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS... Do you need reach, low light or versatility? All are going to match well with your 5DIII.

lindmike

CHG CANON,
My 70-300 isn't an L lens. I'm not sure the Canon 100-400
II L lens is rated as high and consistently as the 70-200 2.8
IIL. Something to research.
Thanks for your input.

ImageCreator Loc: Northern California

I have the 100-400 II and its the best Canon lens. I had the 400L (not the 10k one) and the 70-300L and the 100-400 is so superior its amazing.

Haydon

The 100-400 is certainly a stellar lens but comparing it to a 70-200 2.8 L isn't really fair. There is a reason why this lens stands out.

I'm not a big fan of Tony Northup but Tony refused to switch to Nikon for a reason and this lens was the deciding point. I own both and depending on purpose both have their advantages.

lindmike

Have you thought about the 70-200L? My local dealer has a special going on where there is no tax and Canon is including a $100 rebate.

lindmike

Sounds like a great pair of lenses to own. Thanks for your input.

RRS Loc: Not sure

I think you may have forgotten the 200mm-400mm with the built in 1.4 TC. :lol:

Anandnra Loc: Tennessee

At 10 grand, you'd want to forget about it .... :roll: :roll: :roll:

Just kidding, that'd be the one if you can afford the price and the weight compared to the alternatives being considered.

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

Don't forget the 70-200/f4L lens, in both IS and non-IS versions. Top rated and can be had for a very good price.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

#5 Internal Focusing (doesn't change length when focused or zoomed, can make for better balance)
#6 Fluorite element (which is what makes the Mark II and the 70-200/4L IS so sharp).
#7 Tripod mounting ring (incl. or optional with the 70-200s, while the only 70-300 usable with one is the 70-300L).
#8 Like most L-series, lens hood included

Be sure to handle the 70-200/2.8L IS II in person, before deciding. It's rather large and heavy.

If the f2.8 II is too big and heavy, consider the 70-200/4L IS instead... It's about 2/3 the size and weight of the f2.8 zooms and thanks to a fluorite element the f4L IS is equally sharp and high performance, plus has equivalent 3-4 stop rated IS that's similar to the f2.8 II's. It might be a tiny bit slower focusing (depends upon the camera and AF setup... but many Canon models have one or more AF points that are optimized for f2.8 and faster lenses.)

The f4 versions don't include a tripod mounting ring, but one is available optionally. Canon's own costs about $160, but there are third party clones for around $50 that seem pretty equal.

Provided lens hoods are "tulip" type with the f2.8 lenses, and more standard, non-tulip type with the f4s.

The f4 lenses use 67mm filters while the f2.8 lenses use 77mm.

lindmike

Sounds like something to investigate. Thanks