Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or EF 70-200mm f/4L IS

[nico]

Hi,
I have a 5d (mk I), a 24-105 as walk-around lens, a 50 1.4 for indoor use and a 17-40 as UWA which I will use this summer for my roadtrip in Iceland.
I also wanted to buy a telephoto lens and it was a difficult choice. The unexpensive zooms (70-300 no-L, third party lenses etc.) seem to give really poor images. So I hesitated also between those 2 good lenses (70-200 f/4 IS & 70-300 L) because the other ones (70-200 2.8, 100-400, 300, 400..) are really too big and to heavy to carry with me all along the day (I love hiking).
After lots of searches, I think I will chose the prime 200mm F/2.8 L II. I don't know if you have already considered this cheaper alternative. I have an opportunity to have one second-hand for 600$ (half price of the other two). It's easy to carry (only 13 cm long) and discret (black). It has no weather sealing, no IS but is sharp and good from 2.8 so I'll be able to shoot faster (as fast as the 70-200 2.8 which is twice heavier and half longer) and have a better bokeh for portraits. Because it's a prime, it's also pretty good with a teleconverter (I think I will buy the small 1.4x PRO kenko to have a 280mm F/4) and/or won't hesitate to crop a bit if necessary (I'm not a pro and don't print big posters...) to shoot wildlife.
Comments before my purchase are greatly welcome

 

[neuroanatomist]

I also wanted to buy a telephoto lens and it was a difficult choice. The unexpensive zooms (70-300 no-L, third party lenses etc.) seem to give really poor images. So I hesitated also between those 2 good lenses (70-200 f/4 IS & 70-300 L) because the other ones (70-200 2.8, 100-400, 300, 400..) are really too big and to heavy to carry with me all along the day (I love hiking).
After lots of searches, I think I will chose the prime 200mm F/2.8 L II. I don't know if you have already considered this cheaper alternative. I have an opportunity to have one second-hand for 600$ (half price of the other two). It's easy to carry (only 13 cm long) and discret (black). It has no weather sealing, no IS but is sharp and good from 2.8 so I'll be able to shoot faster (as fast as the 70-200 2.8 which is twice heavier and half longer) and have a better bokeh for portraits. Comments before my purchase are greatly welcome

I owned the 200/2.8 II for a while, and sold it only after getting the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. The 200/2.8 prime is a great lens, and a great value. My only 'complaint' about is is that it's a long focal length to use with no IS - even at f/2.8 you need a fair bit of light to get a 1/200 s shutter speed.

 

[Jedifarce]

Your thoughts guys on the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or an EF 70-200 f/4L IS. There is somewhat of a price difference (approximately $300) among the two, with the latter being cheaper, yet older (2006). Should you choose one among the two in terms of value, what would it be? Both have very decent reviews and I'm looking to purchase one of them. Help me choose.

I was initially looking at the EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II to compliment my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L on a 60D body, but the price is quite prohibiting.

I have both lenses, while I like the extra 100mm focal distance the 300mm gives you over the 200mm, it can't beat the sharpness of the 200mm. The 300mm is a bit dull and softer -which is great if you like that sort of imagery- when compared to the 200mm. In addition, the 200mm has a constant aperture of F/4 meaning if you're shooting video the exposure levels won't shift as it does with the 300mm as you're zooming in or zooming out.

 

[Act444]

Your thoughts guys on the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS or an EF 70-200 f/4L IS. There is somewhat of a price difference (approximately $300) among the two, with the latter being cheaper, yet older (2006). Should you choose one among the two in terms of value, what would it be? Both have very decent reviews and I'm looking to purchase one of them. Help me choose.

I was initially looking at the EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II to compliment my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L on a 60D body, but the price is quite prohibiting.

I have both lenses, while I like the extra 100mm focal distance the 300mm gives you over the 200mm, it can't beat the sharpness of the 200mm. The 300mm is a bit dull and softer -which is great if you like that sort of imagery- when compared to the 200mm. In addition, the 200mm has a constant aperture of F/4 meaning if you're shooting video the exposure levels won't shift as it does with the 300mm as you're zooming in or zooming out.

True that.

But you CAN get sharp images out of the 70-300 with some PP. For many shots I took near 300mm, I messed around with the unsharp mask- boosted the sharpening from +3 to +6 and boom, it was just as sharp as the 70-200.

The images are definitely softer out of camera, though.