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

[Richard8971]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

[dilbert]

Dump the 70-300.

[pj1974]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

Haha!