Reading mode: Light Dark

Travel: EF70-200mm f4L IS II or EF70-300mm f4-5.6L IS

Go to last post
P

Phil Geusebroek

Leading Member
Messages
622
Reaction score
112
Location
US
Hi all,

I’ve been looking at using the new 70-200mm f4L IS II instead of the 70-300mm IS. Has anyone tried both in the field? What would you rather have toted around?

I like the compactness of the 70-300mm L, but it is on the wide side in a smallish bag. I also like not having to fish an extender out and fumble it on when I want longer. The new 70-200mm focuses closer so I get more macro, especially with an extender. Both lenses are a little slow but saving weight is always nice.

Seems like wash between the two. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I’ve also been debating between these two lenses for a while now. I really like how compact the 70-300L is and that it will be easier to pack and it gives you and extra 100mm . But ,I like that the 70-200 is lighter in weight. I also like the constant f/4 aperture on the 70-200 f/4.II Both lenses have excellent image quality, but I think I’m going to go with newer 70-200 f/4 II.
 
Phillip, have you considered the EF70-300II? It ain't an L, but at the performance, price and size, it seems compelling.
 
My travel kit has included the 70-300L for many years and I'm a happy camper. I'd miss the 200-300, even though both lenses are extremely sharp.
 
I had the 70-300L and sold it a while after I got my 70-200 f2.8II. Those aren't the same two that you're comparing, but in my opinion, I liked the image quality more from the 70-200 than from the 70-300L, so I sold it. I haven't used the new 70-200 f4II but have heard that it's image quality is really amazing!

That said, even though it's pretty hefty, and a bit wide, the compactness of the 70-300L makes it a good travel lens if you'll need focal length on your journey. I used mine for plenty of family trips.

Do you have a chance to rent both before buying? You may find a difference in image quality and/or usability. Good luck with your decision.
 
That’s one thing I like: you never have the do the extender shuffle while that Sasquatch is getting away.
 
Doesn't it depend on where you will be going and what you will be shooting there? I am very happy with my 70-300 L. I bought it to shoot tennis knowing that I would also be taking it traveling. I primarily shoot wildlife, scenery, and family. Sometimes I want more length. Other times closer focusing. But I'm always happy to be carrying less weight and bulk than the 100-400 II.
 
Yeah. Mostly it would be natural stuff. If people and nothing wild I would opt for shorter like the 100mm f2.8 macro. I think a perfect light walkabout combo in civilization is the 35mm f2 IS and the 100mm f2.8L IS. Sometimes I want wider but less than longer. A 24-70mm f4 IS with the 35mm is also a great little combo.
 
used the 70-300L for a few years. was an early adopter of the 70-200L F4 IS and used it for many years. now just own f4 IS II.

for your needs i'd go with the 70-300L. it's a great travel lens and is better at 300 than f4 IS II + TC.

the only reason I switched back to the f4 IS is I do a lot of longish exposures on tripod and I always felt I got more inconsistent results with 70-300. but for everything else I was very happy with the lens.
 
My travel kit for the Peruvian Amazon, Madagascar, and Costa Rica/Panama consisted of the 70-300L, 100L macro, and 24mm pancake. With them I felt ready for just about anything. The 100 macro delivered good wildlife and low-light images. I consider it very versatile.
 
I had a similar decision to make some years ago - I started with the original 70-300 IS, which was OK, but I wanted better - and especially tougher build. I replaced it with the original 70-200 f4 L IS and 1.4x II, which was a great combo - my best-selling (and personal favourite) pic ever was taken on that lens. But I found it too tall for my travel bag, and too annoying to keep fitting the extender, so sold it and bought the 70-300 L - a move I've never regretted. I love that lens. Sure, it's not the lightest, but it's compact.

I also tried out the 70-300 DO for a while - very compact, IQ very similar to the original 70-300 IS, it wasn't the right mix for me.

If I were buying now, would I make the same choice with the 70-200 f4 IS II and the 70-300 IS II available? I think I would, yes.
 
Are you willing and able to share that favourite pic with us?
 
Last edited:
Phil Geusebroek said:
Hi all,

I’ve been looking at using the new 70-200mm f4L IS II instead of the 70-300mm IS. Has anyone tried both in the field? What would you rather have toted around?

I like the compactness of the 70-300mm L, but it is on the wide side in a smallish bag. I also like not having to fish an extender out and fumble it on when I want longer. The new 70-200mm focuses closer so I get more macro, especially with an extender. Both lenses are a little slow but saving weight is always nice.

Seems like wash between the two. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Phil.

Tough call.

A bit of my personal experience. I travel to Europe several times a year. Loving Architecture, it’s in my Greek Albanian DNA, I travel with my Greek Trilogy of the Canon f/4 L IS. The 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and my old trusty 70-200 f/4 L IS. I swapped out the wonderful 70-200 f/2.8 for Travel to lighten the load. Still use it here State Side where f/2.8 is desired. I am seriously considering purchasing the new 70-200 f/4 L IS soon as I heard nothing but great things about it. Plus my original is now ten years old. Still will keep as a back up, it’s that good. This trilogy allows me to capture what I need while returning home pain free.

I did shoot one day with a fiend of mine mid span across the Delaware River in Philadelphia. He was using his Canon 70-300 L IS. When asked if I wanted to try, why not?

A quick swap, yes it windy, and boy was I surprised, extra length at a weight between my 70-200 f/4 L IS Version 1and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 100-400 L IS Version II. No need for adding an extender. Hmmmmmmm, I just may buy one some day. I really liked it. And the images were equally stunning from it.

Would I sell my 70-200’s for it, no. Would I like to buy one, you bet. It fills that special void.

For my base kit, a 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 is needed, the others are addition to the family.

I know this as my DNA confirms.

It may be my old adage, “Which to buy First?”
 
Nick5 said:
Phil Geusebroek said:
Hi all,

I’ve been looking at using the new 70-200mm f4L IS II instead of the 70-300mm IS. Has anyone tried both in the field? What would you rather have toted around?

I like the compactness of the 70-300mm L, but it is on the wide side in a smallish bag. I also like not having to fish an extender out and fumble it on when I want longer. The new 70-200mm focuses closer so I get more macro, especially with an extender. Both lenses are a little slow but saving weight is always nice.

Seems like wash between the two. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Phil.

Tough call.

A bit of my personal experience. I travel to Europe several times a year. Loving Architecture, it’s in my Greek Albanian DNA, I travel with my Greek Trilogy of the Canon f/4 L IS. The 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and my old trusty 70-200 f/4 L IS. I swapped out the wonderful 70-200 f/2.8 for Travel to lighten the load. Still use it here State Side where f/2.8 is desired. I am seriously considering purchasing the new 70-200 f/4 L IS soon as I heard nothing but great things about it. Plus my original is now ten years old. Still will keep as a back up, it’s that good. This trilogy allows me to capture what I need while returning home pain free.

I did shoot one day with a fiend of mine mid span across the Delaware River in Philadelphia. He was using his Canon 70-300 L IS. When asked if I wanted to try, why not?

A quick swap, yes it windy, and boy was I surprised, extra length at a weight between my 70-200 f/4 L IS Version 1and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 100-400 L IS Version II. No need for adding an extender. Hmmmmmmm, I just may buy one some day. I really liked it. And the images were equally stunning from it.

Would I sell my 70-200’s for it, no. Would I like to buy one, you bet. It fills that special void.

For my base kit, a 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 is needed, the others are addition to the family.

I know this as my DNA confirms.

It may be my old adage, “Which to buy First?”
Click to expand...
Lately I've thought that the classic 16-35mm f4, 50mm f1.4, and 70-200mm f4 has a mountain of versatility and merit to it.

A 16-35 f4L IS, 35mm f2 IS, and 70-300mm f4L IS would cover a tonne of stuff. I would be strongly tempted to add the 100mm f2.8L IS macro or 85mm f1.4L IS. :)
 
Last edited:
Phil Geusebroek said:
Yeah. Mostly it would be natural stuff. If people and nothing wild I would opt for shorter like the 100mm f2.8 macro. I think a perfect light walkabout combo in civilization is the 35mm f2 IS and the 100mm f2.8L IS. Sometimes I want wider but less than longer. A 24-70mm f4 IS with the 35mm is also a great little combo.
Click to expand...
I would think that 200mm for wildlife (I assume that is what you mean by "natural stuff) is far too short.

For many, 300mm for wildlife is too short, especially birds, and especially on a FF (if that is what you have ?).

I know that on safari in Africa, even 400mm on a APS-C is often too short.

If size & weight is a real concern (or budget), then a 70-300L is probably a good compromise between 70-200L and 100-400L ii. AFAIK, the 70-300L doesn't accept a TC if you were considering that option.

Colin
 
Phil,

A couple of years ago Ann and I spent a month in Scotland, my long lens was the EF 70-200 f/4L IS. I was delighted with it but occasionally would have liked something longer.

Last summer we spent six weeks in Alaska. My long lens was the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L. I was totally delighted and want to go back to Scotland with it.

Just one guy's opinion, but I'd opt for the 70-300L. Easy to carry, balances well on my full frame (6D & 5D Mk III) bodies and my EOS M-5. All and all a great travel lens.

JD
 
I sold the 70-300L and bought back the 70-200/4 IS mark i. 70-300L is a bit heavier and a bit larger in diameter, maybe my hand is smaller. I more like the feeling when holding the F4L.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top