70-200f4is vs 70-300L

[sunnyVan]

I've used 70-300L for over a year. Great IQ indeed. Just a couple of things i don't like. It's a bit heavy on a mk3 for travel, compared to what i had previously (6d+70-200f4). Half kilogram is quite noticeable especially on a hike. I also prefer non extending design of the 70-200f4 IS. I also miss shooting at f4 at 200mm.

The only reason i sold my 70-200 was not because of the extra 100mm i would gain. It's because the AF was slow. It was slow since i purchased it but i never knew it's considered slow. I was a newbie and i didn't have other L lenses to compare with. Image quality was wonderful and AF, although not snappy, was tolerable.

Anyhow, i consider my previous copy of 70-200f4 to be faulty. I'm considering giving it a second try. My concern is whether it's a good idea to buy an outdated lens. I say outdated because the design is 10 years old. I don't foresee an updated version in the near future. The reason 70-300L being so good is because it's more modern. So in my head I'm thinking that it seems silly to dump a more modern lens for an older design lens.

Just curious if there are other owners of both these two lenses and how you arrive at your decision as to which one to keep.

 

[Don Haines]

I've used 70-300L for over a year. Great IQ indeed. Just a couple of things i don't like. It's a bit heavy on a mk3 for travel, compared to what i had previously (6d+70-200f4). Half kilogram is quite noticeable especially on a hike. I also prefer non extending design of the 70-200f4 IS. I also miss shooting at f4 at 200mm.

The only reason i sold my 70-200 was not because of the extra 100mm i would gain. It's because the AF was slow. It was slow since i purchased it but i never knew it's considered slow. I was a newbie and i didn't have other L lenses to compare with. Image quality was wonderful and AF, although not snappy, was tolerable.

Anyhow, i consider my previous copy of 70-200f4 to be faulty. I'm considering giving it a second try. My concern is whether it's a good idea to buy an outdated lens. I say outdated because the design is 10 years old. I don't foresee an updated version in the near future. The reason 70-300L being so good is because it's more modern. So in my head I'm thinking that it seems silly to dump a more modern lens for an older design lens.

Just curious if there are other owners of both these two lenses and how you arrive at your decision as to which one to keep.

I have never used the 70-300, but I can tell you that the AF on the 70-200F4 IS is faster on the 7D2 and the 60D than it was with the non-IS version of the lens, and the IS version is also a tiny bit sharper.

 

[NorbR]

I sold my 70-200L f4 IS to buy the 70-300L. I wish I had a ton of great arguments to justify the move, but the truth is (on top of the fact that the deal on the new lens was too good to pass), the main reason for the change was the ability to pack the 70-300L vertically in my bag. The 70-200 was alway so frustrating when it was time to pack for travel ... Ok, the extra 100mm are nice as well.

Other than that, I've only had the 70-300 for a couple of months, so I can't really say much, but overall, being a more recent lens, it has that snappier feeling. The IS in particular feels better. It sounds better, that much is obvious ... but it also feels better overall, in terms of performance. No scientific measures to back that up, that's pure subjective impression.

As for the weight, I don't mind it at all. Generally speaking I don't care much about the weight of the equipment in my bag. I can take it. The weight on camera matters more, for comfort, but the 70-300 balances very well, being shorter and stubbier. It feels particularly great on my 1D4.

Only thing I truly miss from the 70-200: the non extending design. That makes a lens so much more comfortable to use ... Oh well.

Bottom line: I don't regret the switch, but it's clearly a lateral move. Two great lenses. It came down to details for me.

 

[Ryan708]

I had a Tamron 70-300 VC, and the colors are much more muted, the AF was slower, and the 70-200 f/4 IS has a faster and more accurate autofocus. The 70-200 f/4 is also so much sharper at 200, that a crop equal to a 300mm FOV, was better than the tamron @ 300mm. My camera bag must be tall, as it fits in attached to the body. The IS is a bit growly, I like the ruggedness and weather sealing. The lens is a little soft at the 70mm end, but still sharper than the Tamron @ 70, and thats supposed to be its strong end.

 

[chas1113]

You might want to check out this article by Roger Cicala at Lensrentals. He tested newer lenses against slightly older lenses on the 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III bodies. There seems to be many factors when it comes to AF accuracy/speed. According to his test results, the EF 70-300L IS tested better than the EF 70-200 2.8 II IS. He did not test it against the EF 70-200 f/4 IS, but I would think that THAT lens' AF speed/accuracy would be inferior to the newer zooms from 2010.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-3a-canon-lenses

I had the 70-200 f/4 IS which I replaced with the 70-300 L IS. I'm able to shoot sports and running dogs with it on a 7D Mark II. The image quality between the two is virtually identical (I found the 70-300 better at 70mm, 200mm and up). The 70-200 f/4 IS was better in the middle of the range. But we're splitting hairs, here. I kept the 70-200 for several months before finally letting it go. Like others have said, the AF on the 70-300L "felt" friskier than the 70-200 f/4 IS did. YMMV...
—chas

 

[sunnyVan]

Thanks for the comments.

I think I will do nothing at this point. I'm probably just having GAS problem and looking for excuses to trade gear. I'm sticking to my new year resolution. Hope it lasts..

 

[greger]

I would buy a 1.4 or 2 X extender to use with your 70-200 2.8 lens. I don't know if you can use extenders with your 70-300. I have used my 1.4 exclusively with my 70-200 f4 IS USM since I bought the lens and extender together and am extremely happy with that combo. I am still not fully satisfied with the 2X extender but think it will work with my 100-400 lens once I solve my tripod saging problem. I have to use Live View and my cable release. I was able to use the 2x extender with my 70-200 hand held but at f8 and manual focus the pics were a little soft. Your results with the 70-200 2.8 should be better. This is less expensive than buying the 100-400 ll which would the best solution at a greater expense. Good Luck!