# Lens Choice.. 70-200 F4 L IS or 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS



## mjbehnke (Jan 27, 2012)

OK, I'm ready to purchase a new lens, but I am wondering if I would be better off with the 70-200 F4 L IS and a TC or the 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS? I read that the 70-200 F4 IS is one of the sharpest lenses that canon makes and I read that the new 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS is Good, but not as sharp. Has anybody got any thoughts? I use a 60D and shoot alot of senior photos, and I am really starting to enjoy shooting wildlife.

Thoughts please?


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 28, 2012)

mjbehnke said:


> OK, I'm ready to purchase a new lens, but I am wondering if I would be better off with the 70-200 F4 L IS and a TC or the 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS? I read that the 70-200 F4 IS is one of the sharpest lenses that canon makes and I read that the new 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS is Good, but not as sharp. Has anybody got any thoughts? I use a 60D and shoot alot of senior photos, and I am really starting to enjoy shooting wildlife.
> 
> Thoughts please?



Sharp?? As in seeing the diiference on a 16 x 10? or bigger? The reviews say that the 70-300 MTF is about the same, contrast is better and comes with the lastest IS - and is smaller.

.... and of course gives an extra 100mm reach

Sounds like another eroneous rumour circulating about the 70-300L and an overstatement of the ability of the 70-200 F/4 IS

Here is a shot from today - 1d4 + 70-300, f/4.5, 140mm,1/200, iso450 - exif is there is you want it


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2012)

Unless you're absolutely certain you need a constant f/4 and cannot sacrifice one stop at the long end, I'd get the 70-300L.


----------



## bklein61 (Jan 28, 2012)

I have the 70-300L is and it is very sharp through out the zoom range. The IS is very effective. Do no think you will be disappointed.


----------



## Picsfor (Jan 28, 2012)

Having owned the afore mentioned 70-200, i can vouch for the fact that the lens is extremely sharp.

In fact it's as sharp as th 70-300.

Why buy a lens and TC when you can have them all in one body. And that extra 100mm is already enclosed so less dust spot issues from bolting a lens onto a TC then onto the body.

Also, it gives you that extra flexibility witout having to carry a TC around. Did i mention that it sits in my bag upright and occupies no more room than my 24-105? 70-200 is small, but not that compact for putting in a bag/ rucksack.

Nope, it's the 70-300 for me.


----------



## DianeK (Jan 28, 2012)

I'm another fan and owner of the 70-300L. I my experience, on my 60D, it does soften a bit at 300mm but otherwise very happy with it. Image below taken at 277mm, significantly cropped.


----------



## V8Beast (Jan 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Sounds like another eroneous rumour circulating about the 70-300L and an overstatement of the ability of the 70-200 F/4 IS



I couldn't have said it better myself. I loved my 70-200 f/4, and it was my favorite lens for many years. That said, I replaced it with the 70-300L last summer and don't miss it one bit. The the color, contrast, and sharpness of the of the 70-300L sacrifices nothing to the 70-200 f/4, and the extra 100mm of reach sure comes in handy, especially with a FF sensor. The AF locks very, very quickly as well. I've shot quite a bit with the 70-200 f/2.8L as well, and can't distinguish any difference in IQ between it and the 70-300L.

For marginal price difference between the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 70-300L, I don't know why anyone would buy the former. Now if you wanted fast glass to show off in your sig and bulk up your online street cred, the 70-200 f/2.8 would be the obvious choice, but since you narrowed the field down to f/4 and slower glass, you obviously make purchasing decisions based on more practical purposes


----------



## V8Beast (Jan 28, 2012)

Here are two black subjects that really demonstrate the outstanding color and contrast of both these lenses offer. 

The 70-200 f/4 is sharp....





...but the 70-300L is just as sharp






You can't go wrong either way, but I'll take the extra reach of the 70-300L every day of the week.


----------



## mjbehnke (Jan 28, 2012)

Well, I guess I must be looking at the crops wrong. I was going by the tests on the digital picture's 12233 charts and thinking the 70-200 looked better. But after looking at the photos posted here, I think the contrast is excellent and it is very sharp. 

Not having to add and remove the TC all the time will save on dust... not something I thought about. I picked these lenses as they are what is in my price range (1000 - 1300ish US$) - give or take.

Thanks very much for the replies. I think I will go with the 70-300 and save the money that I would spend on a TC and maybe get the battery grip. This is a great site for help and I appreciate it very much!

Matthe


----------



## michi (Jan 28, 2012)

I'm risking getting in trouble here, but I tried the 70-300 L as soon as it came out after I sold my 70-200 L non-IS. It went back to Amazon a few days later. The sharpness in the corners was pretty average, and there was pretty bad chromatic aberration. I then got the 70-200 L IS instead and love it. True, it's bigger and not as versatile, but I don't need the long reach, and I find the quality to be much better.

If you compare images here, it does seem the 70-200 L IS is a tad better:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1

Sure, it's also true that in most applications you don't really see the difference, but if I spend that much money, I do appreciate getting the sharpest lens possible.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 28, 2012)

michi said:


> Sure, it's also true that in most applications you don't really see the difference, but if I spend that much money, I do appreciate getting the sharpest lens possible.



The OP was asking about the 70-300L vs. the 70-200/4L IS + 1.4x TC. What does the comparison at ~300mm f/5.6 look like?


----------



## V8Beast (Jan 28, 2012)

michi said:


> I'm risking getting in trouble here, but I tried the 70-300 L as soon as it came out after I sold my 70-200 L non-IS. It went back to Amazon a few days later. The sharpness in the corners was pretty average, and there was pretty bad chromatic aberration.



So you tried the 70-300L, you didn't like it, and it didn't suit your needs. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I respect the fact that you actually tried both lenses out before selecting the one that works best for you. 

OTOH, until I can convince someone to pay me to shoot ISO 12233 charts, I'll have to base my assessments by shooting things that pay the bills


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jan 28, 2012)

I used to own the 70-200 F4 L IS before upgrading to the F2.8 L IS for the extra stop. The F4 was indeed very sharp and I loved it from day 1, definitely also due to its constant aperture. In those situations when I needed the extra reach I was using the 1.4x which works great on that lens. Later on I bought the 300 F4 in order to also have F4 at that focal length.

I have not yet tried the 70-300 L but have heard only good things about it. It is very compact which gives it an advantage over the 70-200 however for the 100-200 mm range you only got F5.6 which in my opinion is too slow if you want to use it in not so perfect lighting conditions without a monopod/tripod.

My advice would be to borrow/rent both lenses and to compare them side by side before you make your decision.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 28, 2012)

Michael_pfh said:


> I have not yet tried the 70-300 L but have heard only good things about it. It is very compact which gives it an advantage over the 70-200 however for the 100-200 mm range you only got F5.6 which in my opinion is too slow if you want to use it in not so perfect lighting conditions without a monopod/tripod.



Well I guess my post using 140mm @f/4.5 proves that statement wrong.

f/4: 70-103
f/4.5: 104-154
f/5: 155-228
f/5.6: 229-300

The 4 stop IS will probably mean that you dont need a tripod/monopod

If you are shooting in low light then I would suggest the f/4 will be too slow as well - so a f/2.8 would be better or prime f/2 even more so

Or like me a body that is happy at high iso

Another possible benefit is that the 70-300L is under 6 inches long, whereas the 70-200 is nearly 7inches


----------



## Tijn (Jan 28, 2012)

The 70-200 f/4 IS has pretty much the same image quality. It has the biggest aperture at 200mm (f/4 vs f/5), but lacks the extra 100mm on top of that. The 70-200 f/4 IS focuses internally (meaning it's bigger, but also sexier). It's also less heavy (70-200 IS is 760g, the 70-300 is 1050g).

Personally I also considered both lenses. The 70-200 f/4 IS was also cheaper than the 70-300 where I live; 200-250eu cheaper to be precise). I decided to go for the 70-200 f/4 IS, because I don't need the extra 100mm so much. I required IS, I like somewhat shallow DOF, but I'm on a budget and I didn't want a heavy lens. I'd use it mostly for (candid) portraits, nothing requiring over 200mm (I'm on a crop body).

I can see many people would go for the 70-300. It's just that bit more versatile. Anyways, IQ should not be a differentiator between the two; but like I said, there can be others (namely weight, price, and largest-aperture difference or constant aperture benefit).


----------



## lol (Jan 28, 2012)

I went for the 70-300L for different reasons, but since the link to the crops were posted earlier we can play with them a little. The original poster has a crop sensor body, so we can disregard the full frame corners.

Roughly speaking, I see (70-200 f/4L vs 70-300L):
70mm f/4 on both: win for the 70-200 f/4 which is just sharper all round.
135mm f/4 vs f/4.5: possibly the 70-200 has a slight advantage in the middle, but both degrade away from that
200mm f/4 vs f/5: possibly the 70-200 has a slight advantage in the middle, but it holds on better in the corners
280mm vs 300mm f/5.6: too close for me to call in the middle, but the 70-300 has a slight edge going out where the 70-200 starts showing hints of CA.

From that you might conclude the 70-300's advantage is right at the long end, and if you your needs up to 200mm are critical, then the 70-200 can have a small advantage.

Personally, as wildlife was also mentioned in the 1st post, it's the 70-300 no question. You don't generally want to mess around fitting TC's in the field if you do find yourself needing to go from 70-280. Having the whole range in one go is much more convenient, and for general wildlife you will be finding yourself towards the long end a lot of the time!

While people tend to ask for "the best image quality" what then usually go for is "good enough" and other factors start becoming more important once that is reached. Outside of special applications the 70-300L is more than good enough.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 28, 2012)

lol said:


> Roughly speaking, I see (70-200 f/4L vs 70-300L):
> 70mm f/4 on both: win for the 70-200 f/4 which is just sharper all round.
> 135mm f/4 vs f/4.5: possibly the 70-200 has a slight advantage in the middle, but both degrade away from that
> 200mm f/4 vs f/5: possibly the 70-200 has a slight advantage in the middle, but it holds on better in the corners
> 280mm vs 300mm f/5.6: too close for me to call in the middle, but the 70-300 has a slight edge going out where the 70-200 starts showing hints of CA.



Just for the record on the 70-300L

f/4: 70-103
f/4.5: 104-154
f/5: 155-228
f/5.6: 229-300


----------



## foobar (Jan 28, 2012)

I tried both (70-200L f/4 IS + 1.4 TC II as well as the 70-300L) and to me, both lenses feel pretty much equal in terms of image quality (= they are both excellent and work very well on a high-resolution APS-C sensor). I haven't shot any test charts with them, though.

Ended up with the 70-300L because dealing with the TC all the time is just a big PITA...


----------



## michi (Jan 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> michi said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, it's also true that in most applications you don't really see the difference, but if I spend that much money, I do appreciate getting the sharpest lens possible.
> ...



Didn't even see the TC part. In that case, I would say it's a wash. Actually, if my choice would have been 70-200 plus TC or 70-300, I would pick the 70-300. I have the 1.4 x II and it's a pain in the you know what to carry it with you and attach or detach it in the field. Image quality is actually not that bad with it, and might be even better with the III version, but I would still pick the 70-300 if my goal was to have a 70-300 range lens.


----------



## mjbehnke (Jan 28, 2012)

When I looked at the charts, I was looking at the edges and seeing how out of focus the 70-300 was compared to the 70-200. I didn't think about the fact they were using a FF and the edges would not be that out of focus on a Aps-c sensor. And as stated above... the TC can become a pain in the butt to keep putting on and taking off. I do want the reach for shooting birds and other wildlife in the area and on vacation. So that was the main reason I was thinking of the two lenses, as I would still like to have to 70mm end for when I do senior photos, which I currently use my friends 28-135 IS standard lens for.... but I seem to be always shooting the photos around the 60 - 90mm range.

Thanks for all the replies


----------



## lol (Jan 28, 2012)

If you like the "60-90mm" range then perhaps also consider an 85mm f/1.8 for some big aperture fun.


----------



## mjbehnke (Jan 29, 2012)

LOL: 

I would love to get a prime lens, but I am on such a limited budget, that I really want to get the best zoom for the least amount, as it will be the only lens I will have to use besides my old 18-55mm Series I bundled lens that came with my Rebel XT. I did rent a 70-200 F4 L IS from Lens rental when I went to the Rockies last year and I have saved up enough money to purchase that lens. I just thought that since the 70-300 is only a couple hundred more, I can wait a extra month and purchase that lens instead. I'm sort of on a very tight budget as I am still raising 2 of my three daughters and also am now raising my 2 year old grand daughter from my oldest daughter. 

...... You can just post photos taken with one and I can dream that I took them! LOL

Thanks,
Matthew


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 29, 2012)

mjbehnke said:


> ...... You can just post photos taken with one and I can dream that I took them! LOL
> 
> Thanks,
> Matthew



Here you are - taken a week ago with the 70-300L on a 1DS3

Focal Length: 300.0mm
Aperture: f/5.6
Exposure Time: 0.0002 s (1/5000)
ISO equiv: 1600


----------



## candyman (Jan 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Here you are - taken a week ago with the 70-300L on a 1DS3
> 
> Focal Length: 300.0mm
> Aperture: f/5.6
> ...




What hour of the day was the photo taken? 
I see also some light on the owl? Flash? or a lamp?


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 29, 2012)

candyman said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Here you are - taken a week ago with the 70-300L on a 1DS3
> ...


----------



## mjbehnke (Jan 29, 2012)

Wow, Nice photo. Love the owls. We get a few here that I want to shoot and post. My 60D should be able to freeze the bird in flight???


----------



## unfocused (Jan 29, 2012)

Something to consider: If you are seriously thinking about the 70-300 "L" I would not hesitate very long. Check Canonpricewatch.com and you'll see that with the current rebates, the lens is at an historical low. Rebates end Feb. 4. Who knows when and if we'll see the price that low again?

The 70-200 F4 is also cheaper right now, but not nearly as big of a savings as the 70-300 "L." Both Adorama and B&H offer six-months no interest, so if you are confident you can pay it off in that time, and that's the lens you want, I wouldn't wait.


----------

