70 - 200L IS MII vs 70 - 300L based on price

[intown]

First thanks so much for this great forum.

I have been thinking about a nice telephoto zoom and been looking at the 70-200L IS MII or the 70-300L. I currently have a 60D.

Current Prices:
70-200 = $1974
70-300 = $1369 ($600 Less)
70-300 + tripod collar = $1369 + $150(approx) = $1519 ($450 Less)

Based on the current prices would you step up to the 70-200 IS MII?

Originally I was thinking of the 70-300 based on price but for the next few days the 70-200 is less than $2000, making the prices closer.

I like the fact that the 70-300 is smaller but I really like the idea of flexibility of f/2.8 on the 70-200. I have a feeling I will be in more low light situations rather than needing the extra length.

All opinions are welcome! -- Steven

 

[xROELOFx]

like others have said in other topics, i guess it depends on what you're going to shoot. if its portraits only, the 70-200 is king. if you want to shoot wildlife too, i'd get a 100-400 instead of a 70-300. maybe a 70-200 + 1.4x extender could work too?
also what other lenses do you currently have? this could be useful information too.

anyways, i absolutely love my 70-200! it costs a lot of money, but it is really worth it.
if you have the money, i would definitely recommend it to everyone!

ps. the 70-200 is sold including a tripod colar.

 

[K-amps]

At $1974 for the f2.8 mk.II, it is a no brainer. I ordered mine yesterday!

PS: I already have the 70-300L. It is lighter and maybe even sharper if not the same, and is light. Great travel lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have a feeling I will be in more low light situations rather than needing the extra length.

I'd pick the 70-200mm II, based on your statement. The 18 MP of the 60D allows a bit of flexibility in cropping. If necessary because you occasionally need the length, the 70-200mm II holds up quite well to a 1.4x TC, and decently with a 2x TC. The bare lens offers a sharpness advantage over the 70-300mm L (there based on testing, possibly not evident in real-world shots).

 

[intown]

Thanks so much for the replies and info.

@ xROELOFx I currently have the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8

I am leaning to the 70-200. It is a little larger is size but better suited for my needs, Except travel. (can't have everything, where would you put it). Being as I have two kids under 3, we are not traveling that much these days.

$1974 will probably be the best price for a while. I think the new standard price will be $2199 based on canonpricewatch MAP info. Not entire sure what MAP is all about but I get the feeling it is the new starting point for prices.

Thanks so much! -- Steven

 

[briansquibb]

You dont need the tripod ring with the 70-300L as it is so light

 

[xROELOFx]

Thanks so much for the replies and info.

@ xROELOFx I currently have the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8

I am leaning to the 70-200. It is a little larger is size but better suited for my needs, Except travel. (can't have everything, where would you put it). Being as I have two kids under 3, we are not traveling that much these days.

the 17-55 and 70-200 are a great combination. good IQ and both have the same aperture of 2.8, wich can be useful when switching lenses. you can just use the same settings with both of them.

 

[DasFoto]

I have owned both and since sold the 70-200 as it was just too heavy for lugging around traveling. It also wears on your wrist if you shoot a lot in a given time period. I have gone back to using only the 70-300L.

The image quality between the two was indistinguishable. The build quality and weather sealing is the same level between the two. The lighter weight of the 70-300L makes it fun to use, easy to carry around, and takes up less space in the bag. Unless you will be shooting mostly indoors, I would say the 70-300L would meet your needs. It is a great all-around lens. Even great for outdoor portraits. If you want to shoot indoor portraits, the 70-200 is probably not your best bet on a 60D anyway.

The 100-400 I have never owned but it looks to be just as large and heavy as the 70-200, and on a 60D I find a minimum FL of 100mm too constricting for everyday use.

I'd go with the 70-300L.