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:

I think my words threw you off.
I've never tried the 70-200 with TC so far but yeah, without the TC, definitely I see a lot of difference between the two on my T3 and yeah, my Tamron could still be a bum as well.

OK, that makes more sense. Yeah my 70-200 f/4 IS looked better than my Tamron when both lenses were bare. I had hoped the tamron might be some miracle (like the 17-50 that got me to seel my 17-40L) that would let me sell the 70-200L and keep the Tamron and get more range all for less money :), but nope.I had to go to the 70-300L to more or less do that (aside from the money aspect, which was even more haha ).

But the 70-200+TC was worse at 280mm than the Tamron at 280mm.

TCs make a big difference, on vs. off. Off, 70-200 definitely was better. On, it was worse. (compared to Tamron)

Anyways, from all your suggestions and very detailed analysis, I've finally come to a conclusion. If the price difference between the 70-200 F/4 L IS and the 70-300 L isn't much, I am definitely going the 70-300 L way, else I will choose the former. I think putting finance as the final stake holder is a reasonable way to finalize two equally good products, don't you think?
Once again, to everyone who took time to explain all the details at every little focal length differences, I really appreciate your comments and feedback. Thanks a lot once again. (^_^)

get the 70-300L