70-200 2.8L IS II vs 300 F4L IS

[Riggers]

I posted an example in this thread about the 70-200 2.8L Mark 2 IS with a 1.4x and have to say I was pleasantly surprised with the result even when doing some very heavy cropping (I only kept about 20% of that pic!). I took some advice and changed to using the 1.4x from the 2x and I think that's helped with focusing more quickly.

However, I do often wonder whether the 300mm F4L + 1.4x would do a better job due to the longer reach so less cropping. I just don't know how they would compare.

I know I would lose some speed and also the 70-200 2.8 IS II is highly acclaimed for it's IQ - and it's 300mm equivalent is £5k so out of my price range. So it feels like a bit of a downgrade if anything.

So would the 300mm F4 be better for these type of shots? Any advice appreciated.

[colintf]

Re: 70-200 2.8L IS II vs 300 F4L IS

I often wonder the same
In the 5d3 with the 70-200 (2) f2.8 and even with the 2x mk3 converter I find the results good
You could hire a 300 and have a play or buy used and if not happy sell again and lose little money I think

Good luck

[MX5]

Re: 70-200 2.8L IS II vs 300 F4L IS

I've got these (70-200 f/2.8 IS Mark II, 300 f/4 and 1.4 Mark II) and tend to use them in this order

a) 70-200
b) 70-200 + 1.4x [subjectively to me at least 'better' than 300]
c) 300 + 1.4x

I'm intrigued enough about the 2x Mark III to probably get one in the summer. Also I'm seriously thinking of swapping the 300 for a 400 f/5.6 as when I do use the 300+1.4x it's on moving subjects so the lack of IS on the 400 wouldn't matter.

[Riggers]

Re: 70-200 2.8L IS II vs 300 F4L IS

MX5, I don't suppose you fancy doing a test comparison shot do you? It would be good to compare a 70-200 +1.4 cropped vs 300 +1.4 uncropped.

[MX5]

Re: 70-200 2.8L IS II vs 300 F4L IS

MX5, I don't suppose you fancy doing a test comparison shot do you? It would be good to compare a 70-200 +1.4 cropped vs 300 +1.4 uncropped.

I'll see if I've some spare time (very rare at the moment with work and things) ... but I'll try.

[Riggers]

Re: 70-200 2.8L IS II vs 300 F4L IS

I know the feeling. Thanks anyway.

[briansquibb]

Re: 70-200 2.8L IS II vs 300 F4L IS

If size/weight is an issue then the 200 f2.8 + 2x is an alternative that works well

[Riggers]

Re: 70-200 2.8L IS II vs 300 F4L IS

Size and weight isn't the issue. I'm just trying to find out if the 70-200 2.8 mark 2 is as good as it gets without spending £5k.

[Hereford_EOS]

Re: 70-200 2.8L IS II vs 300 F4L IS

200mm is basically a 4x zoom while 300mm is a 6x zoom.
If you can not get physically closer to your subject then a longer focal length lens is the answer.
Alternatives would be a 400mm f/5.6L prime or a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom.

200mm f/2.8+2x extender = 400mm f/5.6; 300mm f/4+1.4x extender = 420mm f/5.6
Whichever way you look you will get 400mm f/5.6 unless paying big money.
There are strong rumours of a new EF 100-400mm zoom lens coming later this year.

[Riggers]

Re: 70-200 2.8L IS II vs 300 F4L IS

Yes I'm starting to think the 70-200 2.8 with converters is as good as I'm going to get right now. I have both converters but will probably stick to the 1.4 as it seems to focus quicker plus its obviously a faster shutter with the extra stop. Means more cropping but it looks like the IQ with that lens and the 60D and a bit of post in LR4 will save the day.