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?

The Canon 70-200 with TC vIII is better than the Tamron

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=757&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

The 300mm F4 is a little sharper than the Canon with TC III, but not by much

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=111&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Play around with the tools above to see for yourself. The Tamron is pretty weak at the long end.

Earth Art wrote:

The Canon 70-200 with TC vIII is better than the Tamron

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=757&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1

The 300mm F4 is a little sharper than the Canon with TC III, but not by much

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=7&API=1&LensComp=111&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Play around with the tools above to see for yourself. The Tamron is pretty weak at the long end.

I'd take TDP with a grain of salt, especially Tamron results. I swear it looks like he drops his Tamrons before testing.

I'd check out photozone.de test results first.

I've had them all and with my copies (and ultra careful testing that took a long time to carry out) the 70-300L definitely had the best look and microcontrast and least CA at 300mm f/5.6, next was the Tamron 70-300 VC and worst was the 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC III.

At 70mm wide open the 70-300L was clearly the best (although it actually had the most lateral CA), then the tamron then the 70-200 f/4 IS (although this did have the least lateral CA, but after correction it simply had less resolution than the others, especially compared to the 70-300L).

In the mid-range the 70-200 f/4 IS was best and then the 70-300L with the Tamron definitely trailing.

At 200mm the 70-300L did a touch better than the 70-200 f/4 IS which did definitely better than the Tamron. The 70-300L had the least lateral CA at 200mm.

Interestingly they all performed most similarly at FF edges! and showed the greatest differences center and mid-frame!

basically my 70-300l compared to the 70-200 f/4 IS (with 1.4x TC  III for the 280/300 comparison) did, wide open (or both set to whatever the widest the 70-300L could hit) and center frame (other than for CA which was FF edge measured):

better but with more CA at 70mm

basically the same in all regards at 100mm

worse at 135mm

almost as good at 160mm

a little bit better at 200mm with less CA

much better at 280/300mm with much less CA

over the 70-300 range the 70-300L won the largest portion of the range although over 70-200 the 70-200 f/4 IS won the largest portion of the range (although not at the perhaps more critical shortest and longest ends).

Other notes:

70-200 f/4 IS and 70-300L had 50% faster AF than the Tamron 70-300 VC

70-300L had 50% faster AF than the tamron and 70-200+TC

70-300L seemed to have the most precise AF of the bunch

70-300L was heaviest, 70-200 longest but skinniest

swapping tc on and off is a real pain and takes longer than even a simple lens swap does

70-200 has the fastest aperture at 200mm

tamron has the most true focal length (the 70-300L even at 30' to target was still more like the 280mm of the 70-200+TC); 70-300L got the widest (at 70mm it was a bit wider at 30' to target than the 70-200)

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.

dheerc wrote:

So, if I understood it correct, according to you the 70-300mm L is better than the 70-200mm L with 1.4x ?
I am very curious now. Did you use a Full frame or an APS-C sensor camera in your test? The reason I ask that is because I do not plan to go full frame anytime soon and I own a Canon EOS Rebel T3. I would most possible upgrade to a 70D at the best so, on a cropped sensor, at least with my T3, the 70-200L seems to do better with the 1.4x.
As far as TDP reviews are concerned, I have seen them all and yes, that is what prompted me this question int he first place. I saw a lot of people researching on the 70-200 with 1.4x vs the 70-300 L and I thought it would be equally good if not better.
As I said, I am more worried about the longer end since that is where most of my shots come in. So in that aspect, would you even consider the 300 L as a fair comparison or just between the 70-300L and the 70-200L?

Yeah my 70-300L definitely did better from around 175mm-300mm (very slightly near the 175mm end and quite noticeable so at the 280/300mm end).

It doesn't seem surprising to me that the bare lens would do better than the other plus a TC.

Also note that the AF is 50% faster using bare lenses than with 1.4x TC III.

I used a 5D3 for that test, but as I said, the optical differences between them appeared to be largest center frame area wide open so the same should apply to aps-c. At the FF edges the performances was actually more similar than in the center. At f/8 the performance became more similar.

I've never used the 300 f/4 IS but I did use the 300 f/4 non-IS once upon a time. I never got to directly compare the 300 f/4 non-IS since that had been sold by the time I got the 70-200 and way before I later got the 70-300L.

I'd imagine that the 300 f/4 primes are a bit better at 300mm and I'm pretty sure they take the 1.4x TC better (getting you to 420mm) and provide AF for sure and f/4 does give you a full stop speed benefit and option for less DOF for sports. The 70-300L can take a Kenko DGX 1.4x TC to get to 420mm and it is better than upscaling (at least on 5D3 density not sure about 70D) and it allows AF on 5D3 (not sure about 70D).

charlieY wrote:

I once owned Tamron 70-300VC, Canon 70-300IS(non L) but sold them all when I bought 70-200 f4 (non IS) with 1.4TC.

IQ is great, light enough to hold all day long, cheaper than 70-200 f4 IS , 70-300L.

I have no problem to shoot (not kill ... birds without IS.

It's even better when I shoot flower without TC.

I prefer 70-200 f4 + 1.4TC over 70-300L.

how do you know since you just said above that you've only owned the 70-300 non-L

All tests done at about 25' to target, longest end, f/5.6, center frame, constant indoor lighting, best of numerous liveview manual 10x focusing attempts, tripod, remote release, 100% crops:

Here is the 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC III:

http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v61/p1143966064.jpg

And here is the 70-300L:

http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v56/p1143966196.jpg

And here the tamron:

http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v58/p1143966326.jpg

different target 200% crops:

70-200+tc:

http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s4/v66/p1143967304.jpg

70-300:

http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v61/p1143968368.jpg

tamron:

http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v56/p1143967168.jpg

I can also add that the 70-200 f/4 IS tested above beat my 70-200 2.8 non-IS at 200mm f/4 which in turn beat a borrowed 70-200 f/2.8 IS (both at 200 2.8).

My 70-300 non-L was pretty good but it did drop a lot of contrast once you went above 180mm and the focusing was more erratic and it didn't have quite the micro-contrast pop of the 70-200 2.8 non-IS or f/4 IS or 70-300L at any part of the range.

My 100-300L wasn't really any sharper than the 70-300 non-L, maybe a trace less even at the long end, but it had far, far richer contrast near 300mm. The AF was very noisy and slow. Had no IS.

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.

dheerc wrote:

bronxbombers4 wrote:

All tests done at about 25' to target, longest end, f/5.6, center frame, constant indoor lighting, best of numerous liveview manual 10x focusing attempts, tripod, remote release, 100% crops:

Here is the 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC III:

http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v61/p1143966064.jpg

And here is the 70-300L:

http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v56/p1143966196.jpg

And here the tamron:

http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v58/p1143966326.jpg

different target 200% crops:

70-200+tc:

http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s4/v66/p1143967304.jpg

70-300:

http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v61/p1143968368.jpg

tamron:

http://sunsetbayphotography4.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v56/p1143967168.jpg

WOW! This is one of the best tests I've seen so far with respect to these three lenses! Thanks a ton! You completely got me on the 70-300L side now!
Out of curiosity, how come the Tamron seems to be only a tad different than the 70-300L and almost the same as the 70-200 with TC? I am very surprised with that! Does that mean on a FF camera, it does better and comes close to the L lenses because on my cropped T3 sensor, the difference is substantial!

I'm not surprised that it comes close to the other lens with the TC since TC do give decent hits to image quality. Even the might 300 2.8 IS gets the IQ reduced a bit with the 1.4x TC III (although that lens is so amazing that even with the TC it's perhaps still as good as a bare 70-300L or bare 70-200 f/4 IS).

I am surprised that you found the tamron and 70-200 f/4 IS + TC to be so different on the T3.

How did you test? Did you just rely on AF? I don't think the T3 has micro focus adjust so the focus could have been off with the tamron but, by pure luck, dead on with the 70-200+TC combo perhaps?

My tests didn't use AF and use the best of many tries manually with lieview 10x zoomed to eliminate AF mistakes from the equation.

Maybe you got a really bum tamron? It could be that my 70-200 f/4 was bum too of course, but I don't think so considering that it did better than my 70-200 2.8 non-IS at 200mm which itself did better than a borrowed 70-200 2.8 IS at 200mm and I don't see how it could be noticeable better than those two and be a bum copy.

weird, not sure what to say.

dheerc wrote:

At 200, the 70-200 is slightly better wide open and at f/5.6, it is much better than the 70-300L and obviously better than the Tamron as someone pointed out.

For some reason he didn't test the other two at f/5.6 on crop. You can;t compare the f/5.6 scores to the wide open or f/8 scores. On aps-c f/8 already has diffraction hitting and knocking out max sharpness and starting equalize lenses more in terms of resolution (although not for CA and perhaps not even for global contrast richness and color either) so if the lens is good, the f/8 score at the center will usually be worse than at f/5.6. And most lenses are not quite the best at wide open so f/5.6 is almost always sharper too.

At 200mm wide open the difference probably come down to copy variation. With my copies the 70-300L was a tiny bit better wide open 200mm than the 70-200, with his copies it was reversed, but a minor difference in both cases. Where it gets weird is on TDP where he gets the 70-200 easily winning which doesn't seem to match to typical copies and barely any copies at all and his tamron result seems even more out there (although it sounds like you might be one of the ones to get results more like his).

From what I've seen on various reviews and blogs, the 70-300L is usually a trace better at 200m and better at 70mm than the 70-200 and worse in the mid-range although some get it reversed where their 70-200 is a bit better at the extremes and a bit worse in the center, this seems to be much rarer though it seems like a 6:1 ratio have it more like how it was with my copies. I think TDP is the only place I've seen the 70-200 do noticeably better at 200mm and do better even with the TC at 280mm.