# 70-300 IS USM vs 70-200 F/4L



## Alejandro (Oct 8, 2016)

¿Have you seen the digital picture lenses image comparison between the 70-300 IS USM and the 70-200 F/4L on the 5DS R?

(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=358&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=104&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0) 

Wide open at @200 (f/5 for the 70-300 and f/4 for the 70-200), the first one wins. Now im clearly even more confused, since i was supposed to make that little jump expecting some quality upgrade.

Now i think i should jump for the F/4 IS version instead. ¿What do you think?


----------



## Haydn1971 (Oct 8, 2016)

The original 70-300 IS USM is a pretty good lens, but looses out beyond 200mm.... I had one, but upgraded to the 70-300L - I'd suggest that if you are looking for a visible step up, you really need to go beyond the 70-200mm F4 

What are you looking to achieve ?


----------



## LesC (Oct 8, 2016)

Depends on what you want to achieve & budget but I'd consider the new 100-400 L MKII. I have the 70-200 F4L IS which is super sharp but just got the 100-400 which is every bit as good.


----------



## TeT (Oct 8, 2016)

Canon 70 300 L is an awesome lens... it only gives up very little other than lower light to any of the 70 200's.


----------



## AJ (Oct 8, 2016)

The 70-200 has better bokeh.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Oct 8, 2016)

Alejandro said:


> Now i think i should jump for the F/4 IS version instead. ¿What do you think?



The IS version of both 70-200/4's seems to be much sharper. A friend of mine (a pro shooting landscapes) had the non IS version and returned her copy after she tested my IS version some years ago (with a 5D2). She was quite impressed by the sharpness leap she achieved with my lens. Obviously, Canon improved the optical quality with the 70-200/4 L IS USM as latest version. It is a really good, light and compact short tele zoom, also manually it is a joy to use it - focusing and zooming both work butter smooth but precise. I can highly recommend it.


----------



## SteveM (Oct 8, 2016)

Wide open and at all apertures the 70-200 IS is a very sharp lens, check out the review at photozone. I have no problem shooting this wide open at weddings if I wish to travel light. It also makes a very handy/compact landscape lens. Don't bother though if you are shooting wildlife, it is way too short.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 9, 2016)

Wildlife is such a varied subject that that is verging on a ridiculous comment. For many safaris or organised viewing areas 300mm is perfectly adequate, especially large animals. Some people are not after mega-closeup see-every-eyelash' images and concentrate more on showing the animal in its environment.
Is it limited? Yes. is it 'way too short'....that is an open question.


----------



## Alejandro (Oct 13, 2016)

Thank you so much to everyone for your comments.

Primary use would be portraits. I thought about the 85 f/1.8 too, but i think i'd be using the 70-300 more, i love the bokeh at [email protected]


----------



## j-nord (Oct 13, 2016)

If you are primarily looking for results @ 200 f8 on tight headshots then Id strongly consider comparing the focus breathing. I'd suspect the 70-200 f4 variants have better focus breathing over the 70-300 IS. 

Focus breathing is a major reason the 70-200 f2.8 IS II crushes the competition for portrait work. It produces a true (nearly) 200mm when focused close. Nikon's equivalent, for example, is more like 135mm when focused close.


----------



## Smithville123 (Oct 18, 2016)

Since I am new the site won't let me add a new topic to post my questions. Looking for some advice. My wife has a 7D and 
28mm 1.8
50mm 1.8
85mm 1.8
24-105L
The old 55-250

She is looking for a new zoom lense. The new 100-400 is a step too far price wise as she takes pictures for a hobby and not for money. Any suggestions for a zoom tele to take pictures of sports?


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 18, 2016)

Smithville123 said:


> Since I am new the site won't let me add a new topic to post my questions. Looking for some advice. My wife has a 7D and
> 28mm 1.8
> 50mm 1.8
> 85mm 1.8
> ...



What is the budget? The 70-300L is less expensive than the 100-400 and is more compact and lighter.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 18, 2016)

Smithville123 said:


> Since I am new the site won't let me add a new topic to post my questions. Looking for some advice. My wife has a 7D and
> 28mm 1.8
> 50mm 1.8
> 85mm 1.8
> ...



The 70-300L is very good but be aware it does not take the Canon teleconverter (but it will fit on a 3rd party converter) and it hard to really look at anything else in that range. There are, of course, the third party lenses and some have a very, very good reputation and they will often be cheaper than the Canon equivalent. One recurring comment on different forums is that the quality variability in Sigma/Tamron lenses is higher than in Canon so if you are very critical of image quality you may find yourself returning one or two to find on that satisfies you. 

But also relevant is what sort of sports? If it is indoor sports the lower light levels may need something with a wider aperture and the Tamron/Sigma 70-200 f2.8 are both cheaper than the Canon 70-300. 

For field sports you could also look at the Canon 400 f5.6 prime which is still a very good lens but it depends on your reasons for wanting a zoom lens. Sigma has the 150-600 gets very good write up and again is cheaper than the 70-300 but it is quite a bit heavier so is probably worth your wife her hands on one before you actually buy. 

One other thing with lenses is that I am never shy of buying second hand and most commercial dealers offer a 6month to 1-year warranty.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 18, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> The 70-300L is very good but be aware it does not take the Canon teleconverter (but it will fit on a 3rd party converter) and it hard to really look at anything else in that range. There are, of course, the third party lenses and some have a very, very good reputation and they will often be cheaper than the Canon equivalent. One recurring comment on different forums is that the quality variability in Sigma/Tamron lenses is higher than in Canon so if you are very critical of image quality you may find yourself returning one or two to find on that satisfies you.
> 
> But also relevant is what sort of sports? If it is indoor sports the lower light levels may need something with a wider aperture and the Tamron/Sigma 70-200 f2.8 are both cheaper than the Canon 70-300.
> 
> ...



The Canon TC will "fit" the 70-300L when the focal length is set toward the long end only. TDP noted it in 2012, and I tried it on my copy and it was just as they said. In practice, I have never tried using a TC with the 70-300L. There had been issues with 3rd party TCs not working properly with the 70-300L (AFMA settings not retained, etc), so if one is looking for a higher max focal length, I'd suggest a different lens.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=3266


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 18, 2016)

Looking at those two chart crops reminds me of how careful you have to be about choosing your lens from this kind of info. In practical use I've found there is no comparison between the two. I hope the new 70-300 USM II is much better than the one it replaces at 150 to 300 mil.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 18, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-300L is very good but be aware it does not take the Canon teleconverter (but it will fit on a 3rd party converter) and it hard to really look at anything else in that range. There are, of course, the third party lenses and some have a very, very good reputation and they will often be cheaper than the Canon equivalent. One recurring comment on different forums is that the quality variability in Sigma/Tamron lenses is higher than in Canon so if you are very critical of image quality you may find yourself returning one or two to find on that satisfies you.
> ...



I had a 70-300L and kendo 1.4x, it was a waste of time/effort. AF slowed down way too much and the IQ loss vs reach wasn't worth it. I just ended up cropping if 300 wasn't enough. This was on a 6D. On a 7D, the IQ took a big hit to begin with and I'd never even consider a TC for this combo.


----------

