Canon 70-300 L IS 4-5.6 af speed versus 70-200 2.8 mk2

[George]

As per the title, I'd be very interested in anyone who owns/has used both of these lenses.

Although the 70-300 is an excellent lens, sharp and versatile, I find the af on it is a bit slower than my 70-200 mk2, and that also applies when I put a 1.4 mk3 extender on it.

Am I being picky (bearing in mind that IMHO the 70-200 2.8 is one of Canon's finest lenses)?

Also I don't think the IS is quite as good on the 70-300, although they both say 4 stops (which I take with a slight pinch of salt!)

Thanks,George.

 

[George]

No one???

 

[Gary Coyle]

If the AF is only a little slower than your MKII 70-200mm then you have a bum 70-200mm, the AF should blow the 70-300mm out of the water.

 

[George]

If the AF is only a little slower than your MKII 70-200mm then you have a bum 70-200mm, the AF should blow the 70-300mm out of the water.

Perhaps I should have said "noticeably" for the 70-300!
I reckon my 70-200 with a x2 is still faster than the 70-300, just a bit surprised, I'm not at all concerned about mymk2 70-200, as I said its one of Canon's best.
Thought the 70-300 might be faster than it is, just wondered others experience.
I assume you are speaking from experience of both, Gary?

 

[Bebop]

I have both these lenses and would agree the AF is quicker on the 70-200MkII though I've never 'tested' them as such. I've used both for shooting football, but have nowhere near Gary's experience. If I'm tracking in servo mode then I haven't found it's a problem.
When shooting butterflies , I have noticed the AF is slow and then I often switch to manual focus - maybe it's the lack of contrast in the subject? - and AF is on one-shot in this case.

I planned on selling my 70-300 when I got the 70-200 but I still love it. It's so much more compact, has a bit more reach and I think it's really sharp. If I don't need the narrower DOF and the light is good, that is the lens I prefer.

 

[George]

I have both these lenses and would agree the AF is quicker on the 70-200MkII though I've never 'tested' them as such. I've used both for shooting football, but have nowhere near Gary's experience. If I'm tracking in servo mode then I haven't found it's a problem.
When shooting butterflies , I have noticed the AF is slow and then I often switch to manual focus - maybe it's the lack of contrast in the subject? - and AF is on one-shot in this case.

I planned on selling my 70-300 when I got the 70-200 but I still love it. It's so much more compact, has a bit more reach and I think it's really sharp. If I don't need the narrower DOF and the light is good, that is the lens I prefer.

Thanks for those comments, very helpful.....I got the 70-300 as a sort of general purpose walk about lens, lovely and sharp, just wondered about the AF and IS performance to make sure I hadn't got a duffer!!

Thanks!

 

[Jackwow]

Never had a 70-200 so can't compare but I think the AF speed, IS performance and the sharpness of the 70-300 is fantastic, plus its got that extra reach I need in a compact package. As I said, never had a 70-200 but would be extremely surprised if its AF performance would "blow the 70-300 out of the water"!

 

[George]

If the AF is only a little slower than your MKII 70-200mm then you have a bum 70-200mm, the AF should blow the 70-300mm out of the water.

How do you find the IS comparison on the two, Gary?
Edit...just loked on your website, Gary, and it says you are using Nikon, do you also use Canon?