# 70-200mm f4 IS + 1.4 TC or 300mm F4 IS?



## Malte_P (Jan 17, 2013)

i have the 70-200mm F4 IS but i feel the need for more reach lately.

has someone example pictures (same motive) for the 70-200mm f4 IS + 1.4 TC combination versus the 300mm F4 IS?

i know i lose a F-stop and the reach is not exactly the same. 

im just a hobbyist but i care about IQ.
i just don´t know if i "must have" the 300mm F4 or if a TC would be enough.

example images would help me make a decision.


----------



## rs (Jan 17, 2013)

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=111&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## ahab1372 (Jan 18, 2013)

While 300 is more than 200 (obviously), it doesn't feel that much longer in the field. If you need more reach, I recommend looking also at the 100-400 or 400 prime. Depending on what you shoot, even that might not feel long enough, but it will get you closer.
Out of the two options you mentioned, I'd pick the 300 so that you can at least add a TC


----------



## preppyak (Jan 18, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> While 300 is more than 200 (obviously), it doesn't feel that much longer in the field. If you need more reach, I recommend looking also at the 100-400 or 400 prime. Depending on what you shoot, even that might not feel long enough, but it will get you closer.


Or, if you are weight conscious (hiking, travel, etc) and don't want to deal with the 100-400, you can go my path, I got the 200mm f/2.8 and I'll add a 2x TC when I want 400mm f/5.6.

I lose IS, but since I shoot mostly action and things on the move, it's not much of a loss for me. If you need IS, then the 100-400 is a good suggestion


----------

