70-200 F4 IS V 70-300L

S

sjh2008

Messages
1,187
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have a canon 70-300 non -L lens on a 5d mk2 and i am looking to upgrade to either a Canon 70-200 F4 IS or the Canon 70-300L.
But i am stuck as to which one to go for.

Notes.
70-200 F4 IS
sharp, light ( near same weight as my current lens ) constant F4 through out focal length range.
Need to buy a 1.4 T.C for it for 200mm+ range,so extra cost for that approx £225.
Excellent reviews


70-300L
Very slightly heavier than 70-200 + 1.4x T.C combo
Mixed reviews which state it is sharp up to 200mm but gets softer at 300mm
Already have 200-300mm range built in so that's covered so no need to buy a T.C.
Need to purchase a tripod collar for it 3rd party not Canon`s pricey one.
At 200mm aperture of F5 compared to 70-200 at F4.


The cost of each lens is so similar ( 70-200 + 1.4 t.c ) / 70-300L so price wise nothing in it.
Has anyone used both and which one did they settle for and why ?
 
Depends what you want to take photographs of. The 70-200mm f4 IS is a cracking lens, one of canon's best, but you will notice some restrictions in performance with the 1.4x TC (as with any lens and TC, i.e. autofocus speed), but no real loss of image quality.

Are there any other lenses you would consider and is 70-300mm L you max budget
 
peter,

The budget would be around the £1000 - £1200 mark,

Haven`t considered anything else, i have tried a 100-400 but found it a little too heavy for me.
My other thoughts are that if i got the 70-200 it would have the T.C on it a lot as i seem to take most of my shots on my non L 70-300 at 200mm+ range
 
If you taken most of your images at 200mm + have you considered a prime like the canon 300mm f4

An alternative would be the sigma 100-300mm f4, fantastic lens, but discontinued, so only on the used market, but for around £400-550 (depending on condition) its a great lens.
 
Last edited:
pete.rush said:
If you taken most of your images at 200mm + have you considered a prime like the canon 300mm f4.
Click to expand...

I've the Canon 300F4 and it's a cracker of a lens, I know Pete had one before he upgraded to the F2.8. It also takes a 1.4TC very well if required.
 
The 70-200 L is a great lens. One of canons best and doesn't lose that much with a converter. I can see the appeal of the 70-300 L but it will not take the converters. There isn't enough room behind the rear element.
 
sjh2008 said:
I currently have a canon 70-300 non -L lens on a 5d mk2 and i am looking to upgrade to either a Canon 70-200 F4 IS or the Canon 70-300L.
But i am stuck as to which one to go for.

Notes.
70-200 F4 IS
sharp, light ( near same weight as my current lens ) constant F4 through out focal length range.
Need to buy a 1.4 T.C for it for 200mm+ range,so extra cost for that approx £225.
Excellent reviews


70-300L
Very slightly heavier than 70-200 + 1.4x T.C combo
Mixed reviews which state it is sharp up to 200mm but gets softer at 300mm
Already have 200-300mm range built in so that's covered so no need to buy a T.C.
Need to purchase a tripod collar for it 3rd party not Canon`s pricey one.
At 200mm aperture of F5 compared to 70-200 at F4.


The cost of each lens is so similar ( 70-200 + 1.4 t.c ) / 70-300L so price wise nothing in it.
Has anyone used both and which one did they settle for and why ?
Click to expand...

Here's another thread on the 70-300L lens http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=412730

Hope it's some use...
 
Gaz J said:
... I can see the appeal of the 70-300 L but it will not take the converters. There isn't enough room behind the rear element.
Click to expand...

Your statement is incorrect as it only applies to Canon convertors / extendors.
 
I've recently moved from a 70-200 F4 non-IS to a 70-300L.

Pros of the 70-300L:
Sharper everywhere. Maybe I got lucky and it happens to be a good match for my body.
The IS is amazing. I have other IS lenses but this is a different league.
Shorter - will fit vertically in my Lowepro Fastpack 350 so saves a lot of space.
"Macro" capability. This one came as an unexpected surprise

Cons:
Variable aperture, and slower at 200mm. But for me the IS more than makes up for this.
Slower focus. It's not bad, but you don't get the instant "zip" of the 70-200
Heavier
Reversed focus & zoom controls is weird


Overall I've got no regrets at swapping.
 
Sorry to gatecrash the thread but how about a used 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 1.4 or 2x TC...?

Obviously one con would be you need to put the TC on to get to ~300mm or more but what else when compared to the 70-300?

It's a similar weight and the focus speed will probably be better than the 70-300 as well (at least without the TC). It may also be sharper, especially at f/4-5.6?
 
Amp34 said:
Sorry to gatecrash the thread but how about a used 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 1.4 or 2x TC...?

Obviously one con would be you need to put the TC on to get to ~300mm or more but what else when compared to the 70-300?

It's a similar weight and the focus speed will probably be better than the 70-300 as well (at least without the TC). It may also be sharper, especially at f/4-5.6?
Click to expand...

For me personally, not a great combination. In my experience, the 70-200mm f2.8 IS MKI didn't perform as well as I would have expected. Don't get me wrong, on its own, I've taken some great images, but the combination of a TC (1.4x) just didn't perform for the type pf photography (action) that I was challenging it to. Had miles better performance from my 300mm f4.


gridlock you must have had one of the few bad copies, because the 70-200mm f4 (non IS) a cracking lens, sharp throughout.
 
pete.rush said:
gridlock you must have had one of the few bad copies, because the 70-200mm f4 (non IS) a cracking lens, sharp throughout.
Click to expand...
The 70-200 was fine but the 70-300 is sharper still.

Not always a good thing. I've started noticing spiders webs on my pictures :)
 
Gaz J said:
Why spend that money on a lens and not use a Canon converter??
Click to expand...
I have both Canon and Kenko pro 1.4x converters and IMHO there is very little in it as far as IQ goes - the Canon is a little sharper in the corners but the Kenko is a bit sharper in the centre. Apart from the obvious cost advantage of the Kenko it will also fit just about all lenses (works great on a Canon 100 macro for instance). Having used both types with a variety of lenses including the 70-200/4 IS and the Canon 300/2.8 IS I would not hesitate in recommending the Kenko.
 
Last edited:
pete.rush said:
If you taken most of your images at 200mm + have you considered a prime like the canon 300mm f4

An alternative would be the sigma 100-300mm f4, fantastic lens, but discontinued, so only on the used market, but for around £400-550 (depending on condition) its a great lens.
Click to expand...

+1 for this lens. Utterly brilliant. I have the EX DG version, I think there was a non-DG version beforehand.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if I have misunderstood the OP but you'd need to buy the tripod collar for the 70-200 F/4 as they don't come with one either as far as I was aware.

I really love my 70-200 F/4 IS even combined with the 1.4 extender and if buying again, I'd still chose that over the 70-300.
 
Thanks to all for the input so far, the primes are undoubtedly razor sharp.
For me it comes down to weight, if it is too big and heavy to carry then it wont get used as much.
hence my suggestion of the 70-200 or 70-300 as a compromise in terms of weight and size Vs a 300mm prime lens
 
I had the 70-200mm F4 IS

I now have the 70-300mm L IS

I used them side by side for a while, and the 70-300mm was the better lens for me.

I wanted a lightweight solution that would get me into the wildlife range and be reasonably compact. A daily lens for the times when I really don't want to take the big prime out. Now I already had the 70-200mm F4 and I was using that but it would not do for the wildlife stuff or indeed a few other areas without my 1.4x converter. However once the converter is attached while IQ is hardly any difference I found autofocus performance to be reduced enough to notice it. Then there is the ballache of actually attaching the convertor or removing it.

So how does the 70-300mm L stack up? Well at 300mm F5.6 is is really really sharp. It was better than my 70-200mm with the 1.4x and I would go so far as saying it was equal to my 70-200mm without convertor, with that lens stopped down to F5.6.

The autofocus is very good, on a par with the 70-200mm when no convertor is attached

Then there is the image stabiliser, which is also superb.

The 70-200mm F4 IS is a belter of a lens, I really didn't want to let it go if I'm honest. But IMO the 70-300mm out performs it.
 
Richard,

Thanks for your real world comments of using both lenses.
its looking like the 70-300L is favorite then,

Do you have any pics taken with the 70-300L
 
This was taken with a 70-300L handheld on a 60d and is only 484kb file
7448762868_681639a421_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
 
Only got the 70-200mm f/4 IS so cannot compare, but no need for a tripod ring, not so sure on the 70-300mm

Sure it doesn't make any difference, but prefer lenses that don't extend (not sure why really)

Would be handy to know when the 70-300 changes to f/5.6, guessing its a bit before 200mm
 
tijuana taxi said:
Would be handy to know when the 70-300 changes to f/5.6, guessing its a bit before 200mm
Click to expand...

Here you go Rich

From the-digital-picture.com

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L USM Lens

f/4.0---------f/4.5---------f/5.0---------f/5.6
70-103mm----104-154mm--155-228mm---229-300mm
 
Last edited:
Nice and sharp photos, thanks to all for sharing.
I have decided to go for the 70-300L.
I also have the fastpack 350 backpack and as per gridlocks note it should fit in nicely

Can anyone recommend a decent 3rd party tripod collar for it
 
I loved my 70-200 F4 IS, but I LOVE my 70-300L. The extra 100mm more than makes up for the loss of a stop at the long end. Build quality of both is superb, as is IQ wide open.

The 70-300L replaced both my 70-200 and 100-400L. I have no regrets.
 
Just ordered the 70-300L should be with me by next weekend, cant wait to use it,
 
Just received the 70-300L, fantastic lens nice and sharp and not as heavy as id imagined.
As stated earlier didnt need a tripod collar.
Rock solid on my tripod.
Fits nicely in my fastpack 350
 
sjh2008 said:
Just received the 70-300L, fantastic lens nice and sharp and not as heavy as id imagined.
As stated earlier didnt need a tripod collar.
Rock solid on my tripod.
Fits nicely in my fastpack 350
Click to expand...

Excellent news. Hope you get on with it and get some great shots when the weather picks up.
 
andyred said:
Hope you get on with it and get some great shots when the weather picks up.
Click to expand...


this is weather sealed so can go out in nearly all weather acording to digitalrev

not sure i would or have the need to though

just one on tripod collars i have an after market one on my 70-200 f4 its cracked slightly but still holding up worth the £5 i spent on it
 
brad131987 said:
....just one on tripod collars i have an after market one on my 70-200 f4 its cracked slightly but still holding up worth the £5 i spent on it
Click to expand...

It's cracked and you still use it? When it eventually breaks and your 70-200 is smashed on the ground, will it still be worth it? :thinking:
 
Yep I'll just claim on insurance and get a new one

:-)

It's not a crack in literal terms just a cracked off piece near the pin joint

Ive not used it on tripod for ages as I do hand held most of the time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top