70-300 f/4-5.6L or 70-200mm f/4L with 1.4x Extender?

locke42 · Aug 7, 2012

Kinda weighing my options for a telephoto zoom. Top on the list right now are these two.

Has anyone used either of these two lenses? I realize that getting a 70-200mm f/4 with a 1.4x extender would cost significantly more than just getting a 70-300mm, but I get a kit with the same range but is smaller, faster, and lighter overall. Also, I don't know how an extender might compromise image quality.

bronxbombers · Aug 7, 2012

locke42 said:
Kinda weighing my options for a telephoto zoom. Top on the list right now are these two.

Has anyone used either of these two lenses? I realize that getting a 70-200mm f/4 with a 1.4x extender would cost significantly more than just getting a 70-300mm, but I get a kit with the same range but is smaller, faster, and lighter overall. Also, I don't know how an extender might compromise image quality.

lots of threads, i can't bear to type my detailed response out on this one for the 30th time but will just say i had a 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC and i now no longer have that but do have a 70-300L you can search for tons of info on this (i know the search tool is a pain and doesn't work so well, but i've typed like 10 paragraph long responses about 30 times and can't handle repeating it all again)

Rick Knepper · Aug 8, 2012

This comparison has prevented me from buying the 70-300L:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3

and to date, in lieu of any real world comparisons that overturn these comparisons in the conditions I shoot in, I have stuck with my 70-200L/TC combo. To my eye, this comparison shows that the 70-200L beats the 70-300L from 70mm to 200mm and from 201mm to 280mm, the 70-300L beats the 70-200L and of course from 281mm to 300mm, there is no comparison.

Just depends where in the range you spend most of your time. Me? 70mm to 200mm most of the time.

locke42 said:
Kinda weighing my options for a telephoto zoom. Top on the list right now are these two.

Has anyone used either of these two lenses? I realize that getting a 70-200mm f/4 with a 1.4x extender would cost significantly more than just getting a 70-300mm, but I get a kit with the same range but is smaller, faster, and lighter overall. Also, I don't know how an extender might compromise image quality.

--

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.

Dags · Aug 8, 2012

I sold my 70-200 f4 IS L & 1.4 II 2 weeks ago & bought 70-300L & am happy with the move.

for me 70-300L pros are no mucking around with extender, shorter so easier to fit in a bag, slightly more reach 300 vs 280, sharper between 200-280 than 70-200 with extender.

70-300L cons are heavier than bare 70-200, but maybe not much difference with extender fitted, .5 to 1 stop slower, reportedly slightly softer at 135mm but I havent noticed it.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdaggar/

aVolanche · Aug 8, 2012

First off, I hate dealing with an extender. I tried a Canon 1.4X on my 70-200 F4 L IS and found it to be lacking compared to the bare lens. My experience with the 70-300L is brief, but that is the route I would take, and it's an easy choice if one wants the best IQ.

The extra weight is all that's holding me back.

Fred

Steve Balcombe · Aug 8, 2012

Rick Knepper said:
This comparison has prevented me from buying the 70-300L:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3

and to date, in lieu of any real world comparisons that overturn these comparisons in the conditions I shoot in, I have stuck with my 70-200L/TC combo. To my eye, this comparison shows that the 70-200L beats the 70-300L from 70mm to 200mm and from 201mm to 280mm, the 70-300L beats the 70-200L and of course from 281mm to 300mm, there is no comparison.

Just depends where in the range you spend most of your time. Me? 70mm to 200mm most of the time.

I think most of us who are happy with the switch to the 70-300L (and that's a lot of people) would have no problem agreeing with you - if you only want the 70-200 range there is no IQ reason to switch and you have the (small) advantage of f/4 throughout the range.

But as soon as you compare with the 70-200 plus 1.4x TC - which is what the OP was asking about - this turns completely on its head and the 70-300L is the clear winner.

canuck dave · Aug 8, 2012

Was the OP asking about the 70-300L or the non-L version?

Steve Balcombe · Aug 8, 2012

canuck dave said:
Was the OP asking about the 70-300L or the non-L version?

Well, the subject line says L but now you've made me wonder. The post itself doesn't say L, and I'd assumed the comparison was with the 70-200/4L IS because it's in the same price bracket as the 70-300L (higher if you include the Extender), but actually IS isn't stated either.

locke42 · Aug 8, 2012

Yes, I did mean the 70-300L, and I do mean the 70-200 f/4 IS.

Sorry for the confusion.

Steve Balcombe said:
Steve Balcombe wrote:

canuck dave said:

Was the OP asking about the 70-300L or the non-L version?

Click to expand...

Well, the subject line says L but now you've made me wonder. The post itself doesn't say L, and I'd assumed the comparison was with the 70-200/4L IS because it's in the same price bracket as the 70-300L (higher if you include the Extender), but actually IS isn't stated either.

Steve Balcombe · Aug 8, 2012

That's good - saves us all writing out a whole new set of comments and suggestions!

locke42 said:
Sorry for the confusion.

locke42 said:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

canuck dave said:

Was the OP asking about the 70-300L or the non-L version?

Click to expand...

Well, the subject line says L but now you've made me wonder. The post itself doesn't say L, and I'd assumed the comparison was with the 70-200/4L IS because it's in the same price bracket as the 70-300L (higher if you include the Extender), but actually IS isn't stated either.

Click to expand...

netgarden · Aug 9, 2012

The extenders do affect the quality and focus. Livable, but 280 doesn't give u much more length anyway. so it depends on what you plan to use the lens for. fairly close wildlife and birds generally need 300mm. team sports and kids, or larger targets do great with the 70-200. if you want it for distance I,d get the 100-400.
--

http://www.OCwildlife.com
There is no other photography like Wildlife

Rick Knepper · Aug 10, 2012

Steve Balcombe said:
Rick Knepper said:

This comparison has prevented me from buying the 70-300L:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3

and to date, in lieu of any real world comparisons that overturn these comparisons in the conditions I shoot in, I have stuck with my 70-200L/TC combo. To my eye, this comparison shows that the 70-200L beats the 70-300L from 70mm to 200mm and from 201mm to 280mm, the 70-300L beats the 70-200L and of course from 281mm to 300mm, there is no comparison.

Just depends where in the range you spend most of your time. Me? 70mm to 200mm most of the time.

Click to expand...

I think most of us who are happy with the switch to the 70-300L (and that's a lot of people) would have no problem agreeing with you - if you only want the 70-200 range there is no IQ reason to switch and you have the (small) advantage of f/4 throughout the range.

But as soon as you compare with the 70-200 plus 1.4x TC - which is what the OP was asking about - this turns completely on its head and the 70-300L is the clear winner.

Technically you are right about the wording of the OP but I wanted to go beyond that in case his words were poorly chosen. I've got to believe that the poster was interested in the entire range.

--

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.

Rick Knepper · Aug 10, 2012

I am glad you brought this lens up. There have been some rumors about a II version and if this is the case, and if its IQ turns out comparatively equal i.e. the 70-200 vs 70-300L, this lens (mythical at the moment) might be just the one to replace my 70-200 + 1.4x as the extra 100mm would be too much to resist.

netgarden said:
The extenders do affect the quality and focus. Livable, but 280 doesn't give u much more length anyway. so it depends on what you plan to use the lens for. fairly close wildlife and birds generally need 300mm. team sports and kids, or larger targets do great with the 70-200. if you want it for distance I,d get the 100-400.
--

http://www.OCwildlife.com
There is no other photography like Wildlife

--

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.

netgarden · Aug 11, 2012

Can't see canon producing the 200-400 and the 100-400 revised at the same time...the100-400 still selling well? May be awhile. ;(
--

http://www.OCwildlife.com
There is no other photography like Wildlife

valkerie · Aug 12, 2012

He better mean the "L" lens cause the T/C doesn't fit the non L 70-300

canuck dave said:
Was the OP asking about the 70-300L or the non-L version?

--
Valkerie

Steve Balcombe · Aug 13, 2012

valkerie said:
He better mean the "L" lens cause the T/C doesn't fit the non L 70-300

The Canon Extender doesn't fit the L either.

All the Kenko TCs fit both.

But in any case the OP was asking about the 70-200 with TC, not the 70-300.

bronxbombers · Aug 14, 2012

I used tripod, liveview, best of like a dozen 10x zoom focusing tries, fixed indoor lighting, etc. etc. and posted a test some time back.

My 70-300L actually beat my 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm-100mm and 185mm-200mm or so. Granted it was worse at and near 135mm. And it was better 201mm+ than the other with 1.4x TC III (also faster AF in this case).

If you don't use over 200mm much then stick with the f/4 IS for sure, constant f/4, a touch lighter, works better with extension tubes for macro (70-300 focuses very badly with extension tubes) but if you go over 200mm a lot then wow the 70-300L is infinitely more convenient (and shorter). Both have great optical quality and AF.

If you look at photozone.de tests they also disagree with TDP.

Rick Knepper said:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3

and to date, in lieu of any real world comparisons that overturn these comparisons in the conditions I shoot in, I have stuck with my 70-200L/TC combo. To my eye, this comparison shows that the 70-200L beats the 70-300L from 70mm to 200mm and from 201mm to 280mm, the 70-300L beats the 70-200L and of course from 281mm to 300mm, there is no comparison.

Just depends where in the range you spend most of your time. Me? 70mm to 200mm most of the time.

locke42 said:

Kinda weighing my options for a telephoto zoom. Top on the list right now are these two.

Has anyone used either of these two lenses? I realize that getting a 70-200mm f/4 with a 1.4x extender would cost significantly more than just getting a 70-300mm, but I get a kit with the same range but is smaller, faster, and lighter overall. Also, I don't know how an extender might compromise image quality.

Click to expand...

--

Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.

bronxbombers · Aug 14, 2012

netgarden said:
Can't see canon producing the 200-400 and the 100-400 revised at the same time...the100-400 still selling well? May be awhile. ;(
--

http://www.OCwildlife.com
There is no other photography like Wildlife

but the 200-400 costs as much as maybe 300,000 100-400L and weighs about as much as 600 100-400L so they have plenty of room to make a new 100-400 along with the 200-400

sam9677 · Aug 16, 2012

I have the following question.

I have a budget of $500.00

Option 1: Buy the 70-300mm IS USM f4-5.6 new

Option 2: 70-200mm 4L (non IS) used Per the owner in excellent condition. He wants $500.00

Debating on which way to go. Please help.

locke42 · Aug 16, 2012

The 70-300mm IS USM (if we're talking about the same one) is a great performer, especially for the price. You pay a big premium for the "L" qualities that a casual photographer might not necessarily need, so if you're just looking for good optical quality, then the 70-300mm is a good deal.

For my part, though, I want full time manual focusing, which the 70-300mm IS USM doesn't have, so personally, I'm thinking about making the jump up to the 70-200mm f/4L IS, but that's a huge leap in price from $500 to $1,200.

Also, and this may just be me, but I would never get a telephoto lens without IS.

sam9677 said:
I have the following question.

I have a budget of $500.00

Option 1: Buy the 70-300mm IS USM f4-5.6 new

Option 2: 70-200mm 4L (non IS) used Per the owner in excellent condition. He wants $500.00

Debating on which way to go. Please help.

70-300 f/4-5.6L or 70-200mm f/4L with 1.4x Extender?

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Member

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts