# 70-200 f4 L IS USM+1,4X or 70-300 f4-5,6 L IS USM ?



## GP.Masserano (Dec 25, 2016)

Dear friends, 
I have a question for you. 
In the photobag for "general use" I have the old 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM (& 24-70 f4 L) and I am not satisfied about the quality, especially at 300mm. 
What do I buy: *70-200 f4 L IS USM + 1,4X III* or *70-300 4-5.6 L IS USM* ?
The price difference is not decisive.
Are to be mounted on Canon EOS 6D (landscape), 7DII ("easy" wildlife) and 1200D (camera of my wife), for travel photos and nature (for "true" wildlife I have also the 100-400 MK2) 
I have read many tests and the 70-300 L IS USM (100mm more) attracts me very much but does not accept the 1,4 X...  and the 70-200 is a...razor
Is the sharpness comparable between the two "white"?
Thanks
GPaolo

PS: * I would like to take this opportunity to do to all the friends of CANON RUMORS my Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! *
*Good photos at all !*


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 25, 2016)

The 70-300L is weaker at 70mm but holds up well against the 70-200 zooms (any really) at other focal lengths to 280/300mm. It is a fatter but shorter lens when retracted. It's advantage is a wide zoom range in a compact package but doesn't have a fixed maximum aperture.

It is a very good choice as a travel lens because of its focal length range and size. It technically can accept the 1.4x (only at the longer part of its focal length range because it physically interferes at the shorter focal lengths), but I'd rather use the 100-400 II if you want to go to 400mm. Other brands may not interfere like the Canon 1.4x III, but they may have issues with AMFA with the extender/lens combo or have some other issue. The 70-200 f/4 IS will have a fractional advantage in maximum aperture without the 1.4x and a fractional disadvantage with the extender, but taking the extender in/out is a hassle that the 70-300L avoids altogether.

If you always travel with a bag full of lenses, then the 70-300L will not be that appealing. However, if you are looking for a light kit with maybe something like the 16-35, 50 and a 70-xxx zoom or a 40 pancake/70-xxx, then the 70-300L is an appealing option and holds its own especially at the long end.


----------



## GP.Masserano (Dec 25, 2016)

As written in the first topic, I need a 70-200L (or 70-300L) of high quality to be coupled with 24-70* f4* L IS USM almost always on EOS 6D for the "lightweight-bag" to use all the days.
I Would Like an opinion from who has used both lenses, please!


----------



## rs (Dec 25, 2016)

I don't have direct experience with either, but this tool may answer your question:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=738&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0


----------



## Zv (Dec 26, 2016)

For wildlife you'll want more reach so the 70-300L makes more sense. I have the 70-200 f/4 and my copy is weakest @ 200mm, if I were to add a 1.4x then it would be softer still. I think the 70-300L would give the better image quality on the longer end. It's also more versatile as an all around travel lens. It's short and fat and packs easier in small bags. 

I would also consider the 100-400LII if you're going to be doing a lot of wildlife shots. It's a bit bigger than the 70-300 but still useable as a travel option as a two lens solution paired with the 24-70. 

If you primarily shoot portraits and subjects around the shorter focal length then the 70-200 makes more sense. It's actually quite a compact and light lens relatively speaking. I prefer it as it has a fixed aperture throughout the zoom range and doesn't extend when you zoom. But then 200mm is long enough for me, might not be for you.


----------



## PCM-madison (Dec 26, 2016)

I've previously owned the 70-200 F4 L IS, and I currently own the 70-300L IS. I've taken many great photos with both lenses. I also used the 70-200 F4 L IS with the 1.4X extender iii occasionally. Without having done systematic comparisons, I personally would always pick the 70-300L IS over the 70-200 f4 L IS USM+1.4X for image quality and focus speed given my copies of these lenses. The advantage of the 70-300L IS over the 70-200 f4 L IS USM+1.4X is amplified in a travel situation where the compact form factor of the 70-300L IS is an additional clear advantage. Good luck.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 26, 2016)

I have the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-300 L. For travel and all around use, I recommend the 70-300 L because of the size, weight and convenience. 

I've never had any issues with sharpness of the 70-300 and with the IS, I've even successfully used it indoors at 1/30 or 1/15 of a second (well braced). 

My preferred travel combination is the 15-85 and 70-300 for crop sensor and the 24-105 and 70-300 for full frame.

If birding or shooting wildlife, then the 100-400 or one of the 150-600 zooms is preferable, but you pay a real premium in weight. 

The 70-200 is used almost exclusively for indoor sports and for events where I need to shoot in poor light. (Which is what a lot of my paid work consists of). I find 200 too short for most outdoor shooting and would rather have a lens that goes to 300 natively than use an extender.


----------



## limchernsing (Dec 26, 2016)

I own a 70-300 f4-5.6L IS USM and use it on my 7DII. To me, 70-300L is very sharp, especially at 100mm @ F5.6, the AF is lightning fast and accurate, the IS is highly trustable, the 1.05kg of weight is very comfortable. They are a perfect combo to me for any moving around shooting, until a time when I wanted to try on bird shooting. 

Yeah, it falls short for long distance and small subjects. To extend the shooting range, I bought a Kenko 1.4X DGX Pro 300, and it works pretty well on 7DII (F8), Exiff reported 420mm, but I got to turn off the spherical correction feature and to put an exposure compensation of -1 stop. Contrast is definately compromised by the adding of 1.4x, but it just serve the purpose of occational need of extra reach. IMHO, 70-300L is the better choice for your case.

After I add my Sigma 150-600 C to my gear list, I seldom take the fatty white out with me for birding, but she is still one of my beloved lens.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 26, 2016)

If you think a lot of telephoto work will be at 150-300 then get the 70-300L.
If most will be 70-200 with occasional work at 300 then get the 70-200 f4L. Don't forget that once you put the 1.4 on the 70-200 it is f5.6 maximum aperture at all focal lengths whereas the 70-300 will be f4 at 70mm. 

As limchernsing mentioned, the Canon tc will not work on the 70-300 but third-party tc will and the Tamron and Kenko tcs are very good. 

The 70-200 f4LIS is a mechanical marvel and I love using it just because I have it, but if I had not already bought it when the 70-300L came out I may well have got the 70-300 instead (and that would have made the decision to get the 100-400 (MkI at the time) all the harder).


----------



## GP.Masserano (Dec 27, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> *The 70-300L is weaker at 70mm* but holds up well against the 70-200 zooms (any really) at other focal lengths to 280/300mm.



I am very surprised by what you write ! 
According test of PHOTOZONE, the 70-300L IS USM has* the best sharpening just 70mm*, beating clearly the 70-200 L IS USM (and, as you write, maintaining an optimal sharpening up to 200mm and over...).

I think I have understood that* both lenses are excellent* and then the choice is *always right*.
So I believe I will take the* 70-300 L IS USM* that I have already held in the hand and gave me a pleasant feeling of robustness (and 100mm more when I need it...)
I also think it is a considerable leap in quality compared to 70-300 IS USM "black".

Thanks to all 
and again, my best wishes for a 2017 full of beautiful photos!


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 28, 2016)

GP.Masserano said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > *The 70-300L is weaker at 70mm* but holds up well against the 70-200 zooms (any really) at other focal lengths to 280/300mm.
> ...



I've never used the original 70-200 f/2.8 IS, but according to TDP, the 70-300L has better IQ than the original 70-200 f/2.8 IS at 70mm. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and that is my best performing lens at 70mm, besting both the 24-70 f/2.8 II and the 70-300L at 70mm wide open. And my experience with these lenses is largely corroborated by TDP charts comparisons.

Glad to hear that you are opting for hte 70-300L. It is a very nice lens, and once you have L lenses, it's hard not to only use L lenses.


----------



## GP.Masserano (Dec 28, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> GP.Masserano said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...





Thanks for the info. 
*In any case, I always reference to 70-200 F4 L IS USM and not at F2.8*


----------



## slclick (Dec 28, 2016)

I have been through this same predicament and it was solved by skipping the 70-200/70-300 focal lengths and getting the 100-400 Mark 2. With great primes at 50, 100 and 135, I feel complete.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Dec 29, 2016)

I think I saw that you have the 100-400 mkII - if that's the case, why bother with either of your proposed solutions? It's not much heavier that either of the others, has longer reach and better image quality. I'd save the $1200-1500 bucks for something I'd use later.


----------



## GP.Masserano (Dec 29, 2016)

dickgrafixstop said:


> I think I saw that you have the 100-400 mkII - if that's the case, why bother with either of your proposed solutions? It's not much heavier that either of the others, has longer reach and better image quality. I'd save the $1200-1500 bucks for something I'd use later.



The reason is simple. 
I have a *little photo **bag *for trips with family, lightweight and easy to handle: contains a EOS 6D with the 24-105 STM and the 70-300 IS (that I want to replace). 
When I go in the wild to take photos of the animals I have a *heavy** backpack* with EOS 7D II + BG , 8-16 Sigma, 24-70 f4 L IS USM, 100macro 2.8 L IS USM, 100-400 L IS USM MK II & 1.4X, tripod, flash, battery, ecc...

Consequently, the initial question was: *it is better the 70-200 f4 L IS USM or 70-300 L IS USM to put in the "lightweight bag" to take photos without too much effort (like ceremonies, village festivals, portraits to family, etc.) ?*

I do not always want to load on the shoulders almost 10 kg of equipment to photograph my niece... :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2016)

IMO, the 70-300L is the better choice. The only 'bugaboo' is that the zoom and focus rings are switched in position relative to other L zooms and some non-L zooms (including the 24-105 STM). That takes some getting used to, especially if you're switching off with the other zoom. I sometimes find myself turning the focus ring instead on the 70-300L; I also have the tripod ring for it, and holding that to support the lens puts my fingers right at the zoom ring.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2016)

As you are using the 7DII, have the superior 100-400 II for serious work, and just want a light lens for travel, you should also consider the 55-200mm STM. You can see on the usual websites, photozone and TDP, that it is as sharp as the L lenses and my copy is as sharp as my 70-200 f/4 IS at 200mm and loses no sharpness at 250mm. It is far lighter and smaller than the L lenses and only marginally shorter than the 200 + 1.4xTC. 

For me, the 100-400mm II is my lightweight travel lens with the 7DII or FF, and for microlight travel it will be from now the M5 + 55-200mm STM + adapter. I would never do serious wild life travelling without my 100-400 II or longer primes.


----------



## GP.Masserano (Dec 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> IMO, the 70-300L is the better choice. The only 'bugaboo' is that the zoom and focus rings are switched in position relative to other L zooms and some non-L zooms (including the 24-105 STM). That takes some getting used to, especially if you're switching off with the other zoom. I sometimes find myself turning the focus ring instead on the 70-300L; I also have the tripod ring for it, and holding that to support the lens puts my fingers right at the zoom ring.



I believe that the tripod ring is a purchase *really* essential: with it, the palm of the hand rests on bracket and then does not touches the focus ring while the fingers can act on the zoom ring.
Indeed, also the 100-400 MK2 has the same problem but fortunately the bracket is sold together with the lens!!!


----------



## GP.Masserano (Dec 30, 2016)

AlanF said:


> As you are using the 7DII, have the superior 100-400 II for serious work, and just want a light lens for travel, you should also consider the 55-200mm STM.
> 
> For me, the 100-400mm II is my lightweight travel lens with the 7DII or FF, and for microlight travel it will be from now the M5 + 55-200mm STM + adapter. I would never do serious wild life travelling without my 100-400 II or longer primes.



I am sorry but the 55-250 STM is not to my liking: at this point I can use the 70-300 I already have... 
About 100-400 MK2 i think it is a great lens, handy and very good quality. 
I have photographed with the 300 2.8 (1° and 2° type) and with the 500 F4 and all times I found myself in difficulty in the airports...
Working photos with PS I always got excellent results (i do "power point" teaching about animals and botany)

(BITTERN 100-400 MK2 on EOS 7D II)


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 30, 2016)

another point that others have not made yet is that the 70-200F4 L is a constant length lens. If you are going to be using the lens it harsh conditions, it is great to not have a lens that changes length as you zoom it.... Lenses that change the physical length pump air through the lens as you zoom it, and that may be a problem if you shoot near an ocean (salt in the air), in fog or high humidity, or in dusty areas....


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2016)

The 70-200mm f/4 IS was my first serious lens and I bought it and a 7D for our first safari in South Africa, with great success. That trip turned me on to bird photography and the long search for longer lenses, starting with the 1.4xTC. I am just just in the process of arranging a week's bird and nature photography in Borneo. My wife will take the 100-400mm II + 5DS R, and I'll take the 5DIV + 400mm DO II, with the M5 for wider angle zooms and the 22mm f/2. Salivating at the thought of it.


----------



## GP.Masserano (Jan 1, 2017)

AlanF said:


> The 70-200mm f/4 IS was my first serious lens and I bought it and a 7D for our first safari in South Africa, with great success. That trip turned me on to bird photography and the long search for longer lenses, starting with the 1.4xTC. I am just just in the process of arranging a week's bird and nature photography in Borneo. My wife will take the 100-400mm II + 5DS R, and I'll take the 5DIV + 400mm DO II, with the M5 for wider angle zooms and the 22mm f/2. Salivating at the thought of it.



First, congratulations to AlanF for the equipment !!!
And all the friends of the FORUM, thanks to increased with their answers...the uncertainty! ;D
Jokes aside, I understood that these lenses are both very good.
I think I'll reward the solidity of the 70-300 L IS USM...........................or not?

That's all, folks!


----------



## GP.Masserano (Feb 4, 2017)

A few days ago I decided to buy the* 70-300 L *and I must say that I am very satisfied. 

It is solid as a rock (perhaps too…), excellent sharpness (on the full-frame), small size and great versatility. 
Between the other using it up to 200mm, the display of the 6D tells me that becomes a f 5.0 and consequently the loss of brightness with respect to 70-200 f4 is truly minimal.

A tiny problem is the hood, rather hard to fit and that soon will ruin the frame… 

I then ordered the indispensable tripod mount ring C WII because the palm of the left hand goes easily to interfere with the focus ring. 
Again, thank you all for the advice.


----------

