Which Canon zoom lens to get?

I like faster lenses so I'd go w/the 70-200 myself (actually, that's what I did). The 70-200 is a fantastic lens and the constant 2.8 is really nice to have. If you want more reach you can always add a 1.4x, or even a 2.0x later. With the 1.4 you'll only be dropping to f4 too so you'll still have a faster lens than the 70-300 can offer.

Then again, if you're just shooting landscapes, you probably hang out around f8 quite a bit anyway. Maybe the additional speed isn't something that you'd make use of?

I think that it all comes down to speed. What apertures to you like the most? If you find that you don't need or wouldn't use the faster apertures, than the 70-300 offers quite a bit of upside.

Forget the 70-300 lens. The 70-200 f/2.8 L lens is one of the best Canon makes. If you can swing it, the IS II version of the lens is about $500 more. That's the lens I'm currently drooling over at the moment. It's speed and image IQ are superb (from what I hear) and the build quality on it is great. The 70-300L gets decent/mixed reviews however the 70-200 always gets great reviews. The 15-85 is a nice walk around lens as well and the 70-200 would compliment that lens perfectly. Virtually any of the 70-200L lenses (there are 5 of them I think) are excellent choices. As you're looking for an upgrade, might as well get the best out there as it should last you for quite some time.

From what I've read/seen you won't notice any difference in quality between these two lenses unless you pixel peep or print billboards. The glass in the 70-300L is pretty damn good. As a point of reference, at least a few Canon users on the POTN forums previously using a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x converter have traded for the 70-300L without regret.

I own the 70-300L and these are the things that I weighed in making my decision.

- Reach vs. Speed (that extra 100mm of reach can be extremely nice but so can that extra couple of stops of light)
- Cost (what else could you do with the $600 price difference - maybe your photography would benefit from a better walk around lens or an ultra wide angle than it would from a more expensive zoom?)
- Portability (the 70-300L is very compact and easy to bag... the 70-200L not so much)

You have to consider your own priorities.

I wouldn't have thought of the 70-200 or 70-300 as landscape lenses, but then I don't shoot landscapes. I just got a 70-200 2.8 IS II yesterday - I shoot no-flash high school theatre, some portraits, and have this year been been shooting softball and indoor basketball and volleyball on request. I was worried about the weight of the 70-200, but to me it really doesn't feel all that different from my 70-300 when shooting. Obviously I haven't shot much with it yet, but so far the extra weight seems like a non-issue for me. (The only real hassle has been getting used to having the tripod foot in my way.)

I would get choice #1. Shooting with fast glass is always nice, although heavy to carry. If you need reach, a teleconverter would do the job.

Definitely the 70-200 2.8, get IS if you can.

I'd get the 70-300, it'll just be easier to carry around and if you mostly shoot landscapes then you have no need for fast glass.
I've never liked the 70-200 2.8s, they're just too big to be called versatile which is what a good zoom should be and not fast enough to be called really fast.
If you want fast glass primes are the way to go anyway.

I use the Canon 70-200L II f/2.8 almost everyday. Its a great lens with beautiful results. Always sharp.

Mac3, you made the correct choice, I have the 70-200 and it is a great Lens, they were selling for $2k last year when I bought mine, but they went up to $2.5 for a while, so you got a great deal.

You will keep this Lens for many years, I use the 1.4x with it and it works fine, I had a 2.0x years ago and it was not very good, I am not sure about the newest vesion, but at $400 (or whatever it now sells for), I am not going to take a chance...

nothing beats the 2.8L

Good luck with your choice!

mulo said:

nothing beats the 2.8L

Click to expand...

Maybe 2.0 or 1.8?

Sorry, couldn't resist...

I wish Canon would make a 16 - 400 1.8. That would be sweet.

There is no such thing as a fast zoom. F/2.8 is slow.
Get a prime if you want real quality. Zooms are for noobs.

mac mac mac said:

Hey guys, do you think I should get a filter for this lens too? Normally I'm not a big fan of filters, but I was reading some of the reviews online, and some people suggest to get the B+W 77mm UV MRC filter as a way to protect the front element and provide complete weather sealing. The filter is $70. What do you guys think? Thank you.

Click to expand...

You could, or you could go without a filter and just get use a hood. Adding glass onto your lens affects the image quality. I dont use UV filters. I do use an ND filter and polarizer but only when I need them.

mac mac mac said:

Ok I'm going to pass on the filter then. The only reason I brought this up is that someone mentioned about putting a filter on in order to complete with the weather sealing. Is it true? I thought the lens itself is already weather sealed?

Click to expand...

A 70-20mm 2.8 ii IS is weather sealed but the point of the filter is to protect from scratches. Makes sense. But a hood should do that too, keeping the frotn element away from things that could damage it. If you do end up getting a UV filter, dont get a cheap one. Cheap glass on expensive glass gives you cheap glass.

stevendphoto said:

Mac3, you made the correct choice

Click to expand...

I agree. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a FANTASTIC lens. As I mentioned the 1.4x will drop it to f/4 and doesn't really affect IQ in any way. There are quite a few comparison type reviews online. I haven't seen it mentioned yet but the 2.0x will drop it to f/5.6 which is as low as you can go while still maintaining your AF (which doesn't really matter for landscapes, MF is easy enough). With a 2.0x though, you've instantly got a 140-400 f/5.6, that's pretty sweet if you ask me.

rebby said:

I agree. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a FANTASTIC lens. As I mentioned the 1.4x will drop it to f/4 and doesn't really affect IQ in any way. There are quite a few comparison type reviews online. I haven't seen it mentioned yet but the 2.0x will drop it to f/5.6 which is as low as you can go while still maintaining your AF (which doesn't really matter for landscapes, MF is easy enough). With a 2.0x though, you've instantly got a 140-400 f/5.6, that's pretty sweet if you ask me.

Click to expand...

I got the x2 TC mk iii and hardly every use it. I'm more inclined to shoot at 200mm or lower as it is just so much sharper. But, the TC is a handy to have.

macjonny1 said:

There is no such thing as a fast zoom. F/2.8 is slow.
Get a prime if you want real quality. Zooms are for noobs.

Click to expand...

F/2.8 is a fast zoom and most of the time, that's all it takes. Some zooms are as sharp as prime lenses, so thinking that a prime lens or nothing is no longer valid. And there are plenty of professionals who use zoom lenses.

mac mac mac said:

Thank you fitshaced. I'll just use the hood for now. Maybe I'll get a B+W polarizer when I shoot near the water. I have that on the 15-85, and it really does cut down on the glare and enhances contrast.

Click to expand...

I have two filters. A Heliopan UV that I only use in conditions where there is a chance of flying debris like at the beach where sand is blowing around. The other filter is a B+W circular polarizer which is good for anything that has a reflective surface be it water or cars.