# Which to keep? EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 4L IS USM



## Richard8971 (Jul 20, 2012)

I may have to downsize some of my zoom lenses and the two that I may have to choose between are the EF 70-300 IS USM lens and the EF 70-200 f4L IS USM lens.

Now of course, the "L" is a better lens in every way, but I like having the little bit of extra reach of the 300mm. What do you guys think? If you could only keep one, which one would it be?

D


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 20, 2012)

Keep the 70-200:  better IQ and versatility. You could always add the 1.4x later to get close at 280 f/5.6.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 20, 2012)

Do what you have to. Both take images just fine, and, unless you need the "L" to earn a living, I'd say sell it. I love my 70-200mm f/4L IS, but if I needed cash, it would go.


----------



## Richard8971 (Jul 20, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Keep the 70-200: better IQ and versatility. You could always add the 1.4x later to get close at 280 f/5.6.



I had thought about doing that. Will autofocus still work?

D


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 20, 2012)

Richard8971 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Keep the 70-200: better IQ and versatility. You could always add the 1.4x later to get close at 280 f/5.6.
> ...


yeah AF will be fine a little slower perhaps
if you want a cheaper TC option the kenko is optically as good as the canon and under half the price

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Kenko-1-4x-Teleplus-Pro-300-DGX-Teleconverter-NEW-/150854696044?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item231fa3fc6c

i use the kenko 1.4 and have a canon 2x mk 3 as well which i sometimes use too on the 70-200 f2.8


----------



## Fleetie (Jul 20, 2012)

The 70-200 f/4 L IS is a stonkingly good, SHARP lens.

I used to have it. I traded it up for the f/2.8 version, which seems a little less sharp, if anything, though still good.

I'd advise hanging on to your 70-200. You can always put a 1.4x teleconverter on it, and still have working AF.


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 20, 2012)

Richard8971 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Keep the 70-200: better IQ and versatility. You could always add the 1.4x later to get close at 280 f/5.6.
> ...



I have such a configuration. AF is slower. Sharpness is not so much worse. 
The main drawbacks are:
1. Slightly worse bokeh
2. Some more CA
3. Stronger vignetting

What you win is still having one of the best Canon zooms ever and @F4.

The other drawback is loss of possibility to use DLO in DPP as converters are not included (yet). This is important IF you use DPP at all.

Maybe consider selling both and getting 70-200 F2.8 L IS II? To such a configuration you could add EF 2.0 in the future and still be able to AF!


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 20, 2012)

Richard8971 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Keep the 70-200: better IQ and versatility. You could always add the 1.4x later to get close at 280 f/5.6.
> ...



Like others have already stated, AF will work with a 1.4x. The pictures will get a little softer at 100% but is barely noticeable, but it should do well compared to your non-L 70-300. TCs should only be used when you need the extra reach. Losing a stop over the whole range is significant, but at 300, it would be the same/better than your current non-L 70-300 at 300 (both at max aperture of f/5.6).


----------



## pdirestajr (Jul 20, 2012)

Why not sell both and get the 70-300L?


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 20, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Why not sell both and get the 70-300L?



That's also my advice! Best of both worlds.

The 70-300mm L is at least as sharp, and almost as fast as the 70-200mm f/4 L as same focal lengths, plus you get an additional 100mm on the tele end.

The 70-300mm L is still a portable lens, I love mine!

Paul


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 20, 2012)

I'm surprised there haven't been posts saying to buy the 200 f/2L or 300 f/2.8L. 

Anyways, if I were to keep one of your current lenses, it'd be the L glass, 70-200 f/4L.

If you are willing to sell, I would do that and get the 70-300L. 

Those would be my two options.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 20, 2012)

pj1974 said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > Why not sell both and get the 70-300L?
> ...



The 70-300L is a great lens. But having had both lenses, there are a couple of notable compromises you make with the above trade. First, of course, is the variable aperture (but I made that a non-issue given what I use the lens for, and other lenses in my collection)- by 200mm you're at f/5 so it's 2/3 of a stop slower at the long end...also, I find it a weaker performer than the 70-200 at 70mm f/4.

But the benefits- extra 100mm on long end, and great at 300mm f/5.6!


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 20, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I'm surprised there haven't been posts saying to buy the 200 f/2L or 300 f/2.8L.
> 
> Anyways, if I were to keep one of your current lenses, it'd be the L glass, 70-200 f/4L.
> 
> ...



Most of those posters are jumping all over the mirrorless threads and opining that it would be perfect if it just had _______ feature or that Canon should have been able to figure out how to put a FF sensor in a mirrorless body for a P&S price. :


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 20, 2012)

Haha!


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jul 23, 2012)

Consider selling the 70-300; keeping the 70-200 f4L then adding a 300 f4L (which you can get that used for under $1000).


----------



## preppyak (Jul 23, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> Consider selling the 70-300; keeping the 70-200 f4L then adding a 300 f4L (which you can get that used for under $1000).


That would kind of defeat the purpose of downsizing, especially since it'll cost more.

I'll agree with the 70-300L suggestion if the downsizing is just literally to have less gear, and not to recoup some money as well. If there are monetary considerations, then its a different story.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 24, 2012)

Richard8971 said:


> I may have to downsize some of my zoom lenses and the two that I may have to choose between are the EF 70-300 IS USM lens and the EF 70-200 f4L IS USM lens.
> 
> Now of course, the "L" is a better lens in every way, but I like having the little bit of extra reach of the 300mm. What do you guys think? If you could only keep one, which one would it be?
> 
> D



What about selling both and grabbing a 70-300L and perhaps even a bit of cash back in the pocket? If you can afford to keep the 70-200 f/4 IS L vs the 70-300 IS then it sounds like a $250-300 difference in your pocket in the end wouldn't matter?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 24, 2012)

Act444 said:


> The 70-300L is a great lens. But having had both lenses, there are a couple of notable compromises you make with the above trade. First, of course, is the variable aperture (but I made that a non-issue given what I use the lens for, and other lenses in my collection)- by 200mm you're at f/5 so it's 2/3 of a stop slower at the long end...also, I find it a weaker performer than the 70-200 at 70mm f/4.
> 
> But the benefits- extra 100mm on long end, and great at 300mm f/5.6!



It seems there is some copy variation. With my copy and most that I read about the 70-300L is actually sharper than people's 70-200 f/4 IS's at 70mm f/4 and 200mm f/5 but less sharp at 135mm. Look on photozone.de too.

That said every once in a while I hear someone report what you do and it's happened just enough know that there must be something to it so either some 70-300L or some 70-200 f/4 IS are weaker than most at 70mm, not sure which side the blame falls on. Interestingly some who report as you do say the 70-300L is sharper at 135mm which is the opposite of most findings. I guess for most copies 70-200 f/4 is relatively better in the middle of the range and the 70-300L at the extreme but with some pairings it's reversed.

But my 70-300L at 70mm f/4 is easier sharper than my 70-200 f/4 IS had been (although with noticeably more CA (although less at 200mm)). Even my tamron 70-200 70-300 vc was a little bit sharper at 70mm f/4 (the one and only place it beat my 70-200 f/4 IS, everywhere else it lost for sure). I guess this hints at the variation perhaps being in the 70-200 f/4s? 

The AF stinks (doesn't work at all) on the 70-300L with extension tubes for macros though, at least on non-f/8 AF bodies. Total mess on my 7D/5D2/5D3 while the 70-200 f/4 IS does fine with extension tubes and AF. Maybe on a 1 series prior to 1DX it would do OK with that. (Oddly AF on 5D3 at max mag and full extension tubes and macro lens maintains AF though, I'd have thought that would let in even less light or the same as 70-300L+a single extension).

Otherwise AF is very similar between them.


----------



## K-amps (Jul 24, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Why not sell both and get the 70-300L?



+100


----------

