Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS with 1.4x or Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS or 300 f/4 L IS over Tamron 70-300 VC?

Steve Balcombe wrote:

I have all the lenses you mention except for the Tamron. If you expect to shoot mostly at or close to 300 mm, then the 70-300L is far better than the 70-200 with an Extender. Image quality is virtually indistinguishable, and having the whole zoom range without having to fit a TC is a big practical advantage. The 70-300L is shorter when packed, so it's easier to fit in a small bag - especially if the comparison is against the 70-200 with the TC attached.

I wouldn't recommend the 300/4L IS for your situation, despite having one myself. It's the biggest lens, it has no zoom, the IS is first generation two-stop (and very clunky), and it suffers from longitudinal CA. Image quality is good but not as good as the 70-300L. The one advantage it does have is f/4 at 300 mm which is undeniably nice to have.

70-300L without hesitation.

My opinion also.

The Tamron isn't bad, but no real competition for the 70-300L.

The 70-200 f4 L IS  and 70-300L are very close. The -300 being sharper at the short end, the -200 slightly sharper at 200mm. The -300 is better at 300mm than the -200 at 200mm + TC, though not by far. In real life it will be very different to see any difference between both.

The pros of the 70-200 are weight, constant max f4 without TC and better handling. The pros of the 70-300 are the availability of the entire 70-300mm range at any time and no degrade in AF speed due to the use of a TC.

Ever after I bought the 70-300L I have used my 70-200 a lot less, so much less that I think about selling it.

The advantage of the 300mm is the max f4 (and it is sharp at f4). But the 300mm f4 is a lot larger and heavier than the others. Anyone looking at this lens might also consider the 100-400mm II.

Sandor.