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?

dheerc wrote:

Thanks a lot guys.
Your inputs have been very useful so far. The amount of research everyone has put in for such a huge dilemma is very useful and it's really an eye opener.

This is what I have noted so far, please correct me if I am wrong.

Reasons to go the 70-300 L way:

1. Very good CA control all the way.

other than near 70mm, where it does suffer from a lot of lateral CA even though the resolution at 70mm is very, very good once that is taken care of

1. 300mm focus without external teleconverter.
2. L quality optics.

Reasons to go the 70-200 L way:

1. Almost same quality as 70-300 L if paired with TC

not IMO (and worse and 50% slower AF)

1. A tad better/ almost similar in the 100-200mm range than 70-300L
2. constant F/4 if no TC used
3. AF almost same as 70-300L without TC
4. Much lighter
5. Used version costs lesser than used 70-300L (from my research)

Reasons NOT to go 300mm F/4L:

1. Bigger, bulkier and less IQ than the other two 'L' lenses

at least with the 300 f/4 non-IS it was definitely better than 70-200+TC and I believe even than the 70-300L

So, overall, the 70-300 L sounds best from everyone's POV. The reason why I am hesitant to go the 70-300L way is because my Tamron isn't going to fetch me much if I sell it now and so, I plan to keep it for a while. The dilemma I face now is, getting a cheap 70-200 f/4 L IS without the TC seems good to enter the 'L' line up but then, if I do that I would use the Tamron more at the longest lengths but I would definitely be using the former for shorter ones and crop them because I know I will get a lot more detail with the 70-200 cropped than the Tamron at 300 without crop.

You won't get nearly as much detail cropping 70-200 f/4 IS at 200mm than the Tamron at 300mm, it's not even close, the Tamron easily gives more detail (technically it often gives a trace more detail than even the 70-300L because it hits a true 300mm much closer in although the overall look has a bit less microcontrast and is not as pretty, so doesn't look as good and yet if you really stare there might be a trace more tiny details that you could see).

If I get the 70-300 L, the Tamron is going to collect dust!

I'd say so.

I am slightly leaning towards having the 70-200 as a main lens and having my Tamron as a secondary lens just for the longest range. This might sound rude or stupid,

It does sound curious. Plus 70-300L weighs less and is a lot less bulky than carrying a 70-200 plus the tamron.

I really don't know why but somehow the 70-300 L isn't as appealing as the 70-200 to me for some really weird reason that I don't understand. Maybe I should rent it out and see how it performs just like I did with the 70-200.

So, for the last time, just to make a decision, let me ask this:

If you wanted the best quality in the 70-200mm range, which would you pick? 70-300 L or the 70-200 f/4 L IS?

70-200 f/4 IS overall BUT the 70-300L does win at the near 70mm and near 200mm which might be more important to some (and it's not like the 70-300L is bad at 135mm)

Anyway my path was 100-300L to 70-300 non-L then I added a 70-200 2.8 non-IS for sports then when I stopped shooting indoor sports I sold both the 70-300 non-L and 70-200 2.8 non-IS and got the 70-200 f/4 IS (it had better IQ and focusing than the 70-300 non-IS and was also light enough for travel and such). I thought I'd never, ever sell the 70-200 f/4 IS but then I finally tried the 70-300L and after the 70-200 f/4 IS sat on the shelf for 8 months I finally brought myself to sell it (just too much money to sit on the shelf). I really haven't looked back at all either and I realllly liked the 70-200 f/4 IS too. The 70-300L just has very good AF and IQ and getting to 300mm without the total pain in the neck swapping TC on and off is fantastic (note that the 70-300L is considerably better over 98-200mm range than the 70-200+TC plus it's a faster aperture too so you don;t want to just leave the TC on the 70-200 f/4 IS all the time, so you need to swap it on and off and on and off and often I ended up just leaving it off and cropping at times even though that gave less detail, it was such a drag and often the subject would be gone by the time the TC was put on anyway).

Since you seem to care a lot about 200-300mm range I'd really go for the 70-300L over the 70-200 f/4 IS. The 70-200 is a bit faster and lighter and less expensive so if you only even need 200mm and below then I would go 70-200 f/4 IS, but if you need to go above 200mm then I'd really go 70-300L.