DocDav Loc: IN

I am in the market for a 70 - 200 mm lens. I have to wonder if canon is really worth the extra 4 or 50 bucks?

I also sure wouldn't turn down a 70-300 lens either. In terms of sharpness and speed of focusing and just over all accuracy who would you guys go with. I know, without knowing what I am going to do with it it is difficult but I currently ahve a less expensive canon 70-300 in the less expensive lens ( with the gold rim line) and want to know, for the cost, will I actually see an improvement.

My choices currently are ( and maybe a 1.4 for the 200 lens?)
Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM

Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS III USM

Sigma 70-200 F2.8 DG OS Hsm Sports lens

Thanks all

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Do you shoot indoor events professionally? If 'yes', the f/2.8 with IS / OS support is a must and part of the required equipment for this type of work.

The f/4 zooms at 70-200 are all excellent lenses, with equally excellent image quality, with just different mixes of with or without IS support, giving options of weight and cost, but not the same premium performance in indoor low-light. The 70-200 zooms will tend to have a better image quality for the same focal lengths, but only up through their maximum 200mm focal length. The 70-200 L models can be extended with Canon's 1.4x and 2x extenders, where the 70-300 zooms are not designed to use either of Canon's extenders.

For general purposes, excluding indoor event photography, the newest 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM is the current best choice, providing excellent performance at a relatively lower price. If you aspire for wildlife or still more focal length via extending options, the 100-400L is in the same price range as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS versions.

The point is to avoid being lured into an f/2.8 lens, thinking the price must indicate the absolute quality of the lens. Who the customers are for specific models impacts the pricing, along with the expected usage situations of those customers (i.e, the ruggedness of the equipment).

DocDav Loc: IN

Solid advice. thanks!

Zooman 1

I have the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM, and am very pleased with it's performance. Like to use it coupled to the Canon R, for much of my nature photography.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

What camera do you use? Focus accuracy is more a function of the camera body and lighting conditions/contrast, and communication between the lens and the camera, as well as AF settings in the camera.

Your decision should be based on subject matter first, then cost. Many do the opposite - prioritizing cost over everything else, only to come to the realization that they made a hasty decision. For instance, if you are shooting sports and need a lens that can focus quickly at night or in a poorly lit gymnasium, an F2.8 lens can be indispensable. In very general terms, lenses that have large maximum apertures can provide better sharpness at working apertures than slower lenses.

Depth of field with faster lenses can be a factor for isolating certain subjects like people and wildlife. Sometimes a slow lens won't provide enough isolation.

If you are considering a teleconverter, a lens that has a maximum aperture of F5.6 is a poor choice.

Knowing what camera and what you are hoping to shoot with your new lens would definitely help get you better recommendations.

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

I have a TAMRON 70-200 g2 on my Nikon and love it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

and for longer work the 400 5.6 prime - MUCH cheaper ...

hrblaine

I have both the 70-300 and the 70-200 F4 and I like and use them both. I use the 70-200 when I need a little more reach than I get with a normal lens or even with an 85/100 mm (for some reason I have never warmed to the 135.) The 70-300 is my telephoto, used sometimes with a 1.4 extender. I use them on a Canon 5Dc. I field trial Pointers and English Cockers so that's where they get the most use but I shoot landscapes too. Depends on what I want but the 70-200 is sometimes useful there. Harry

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I had a 70-200 L once - almost always shot it with a 1.4X - now I have the 70-300 IS II nano and not looking back ....
.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM III is one of the best 70-200s anyone has ever made. It's also one of the more expensive ones.

If you have considered the 70-300mm f/4-f/5.6, you obviously aren't too worried about the f/2.8 aperture. As such, you also might want to consider the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM II.... it's also an excellent lens, is a lot smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 lenses. The f/4 is also considerably lower cost. Check it out.

I don't know about the Sigma... However, typically Sigma lenses are bigger and heavier than the same lens in other brands. Yep, I was curious so I took a look... the Sigma is over half a lb. heavier than the Canon f/2.8 III. In contrast, the Canon 70-200 f/4 II is almost a full lb. lighter than the Canon f/2.8 III (close to 1.5 lb. lighter than the Sigma).

You can do a lot of research on these and many other lenses, even compare them side-by-side, at the following website: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/

Robby418 Loc: Brooklyn, New York

One might conclude that your choices are based on a Canon mount since you've included a third party, Sigma. Correct me if I'm wrong. If so, much has been lauded to it's native glass, the 70-200 f2.8 IS III USM. An alternative to the Sigma from my experience is the Tamron G2 version. Bottom line, rent for a weekend and base your decision on use. It may cost you a little extra but you'll be satisfied having tailored the lens to your equipment. Whatever you decide, continued good shooting 😎

JKaye Loc: Chicago

I have the Canon 70-300 and am extremely satisfied with it...a friend has another brand which is okay but not the sharpness or stability of the Canon. If you have the extra bucks I would go with the Canon...but I would always go with the Canon.