70-200 F/4L IS vs. 70-300 F/4-5.6L IS - which way to go?

Started Dec 21, 2010 | Discussions thread
spiderhunter Regular Member • Posts: 238
Re: 70-200 F/4L IS vs. 70-300 F/4-5.6L IS - which way to go?

I tend to think that the 70-300L is the one lens solution for those wanting a longer reach. In the real, world, no one can really tell the IQ difference between the two. The 70-300L is far more versatile than the 70-200L. The former is fatter (more compact, too) but shorter and, weather sealed. You don't need an extra lens element if you wanted a longer reach. I have the feeling that it's much 'tougher' than the 70-200.

czaharop wrote:


I've saved enough money and would like to upgrade my 70-300 IS to a higher quality telephoto. I'm been happy with it for several years but am sometimes disappointed by its softness at the long end. I'm currently up in the air between the trusted 70-200 F/4L IS (which is on sale until January 8 for $1030) or waiting for the price to drop a little on the new 70-300L. I like the extra 100mm reach and don't really think I need the constant F/4 as most of my shooting is outdoors. But I also know the difference between 200mm and 300mm is not very much and and the 70-200 F/4 IS is a very good lens. I'm leaning toward waiting for the 70-300L. Any opinions ?

BTW: The rest of my kit consists of a Rebel XTi (waiting for 7DII!) , 17-55, and 10-22



-- hide signature --

A good picture is worth one word - IMPACT.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow