70-200f/4 IS L + 1.4tc or 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS L?

joger wrote:

there are many users that praise their 24-105 f/4.0 as well in the forum.

I have only seen images from friends and lots of reports that state it is quite close to the 70-200 f/4.0

So to echo your words - it seems to be quite close and I am sure many 70-300 buyers won't give way their 100 mm advantage for better image quality at 200 mm simply because 300 is mor then 200 - yes?

Have you tested the 300 f/2.8 II ?? I own the 70-200 f/4.0 and the 300 f/2.8 II and I am quite good in interpreting also the TDP results - which are in line with my lenses (more or less)

70-200 f/4.0 L IS USM including 1.4x => 280 mm f/5.6

70-300 f/4.0-5.6 L IS USM at 300 mm f/5.6

300 f/4.0 L IS USM at 300 mm f/5.6

300 f/2.8 L IS USM II at 300 mm f/5.6

and if you need further information - lens tip had also some nice graphs

and Photozone as well - none of them contradicts to the DXO results - the 70-200 is almost as good at 280 mm as the 70-300 but significantly better before.

For me it is more a question of weight rather then range - if weight is no problem a 70-200 f/2.8 II is the better option trumping all current lenses - even with 1.4x

--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein