CANON EF 70-200MM F4L IS USM vs Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM

Im just going to go one lens for close up birding i cant make my mind up 70-200 is lighter, but can it hold its own with the 70-300 L any advice please thank you....Happy

Are you looking at the 70-200 f/4 L IS Version 1 or the Mark II?

For birds, go with reach.

If you're in blinds in low light and baiting them in, you can use anything. But if you're not, then go for reach.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #19339281
For birds, go with reach.

If you're in blinds in low light and baiting them in, you can use anything. But if you're not, then go for reach.

Very best,

Like your cats Mal do you do Birds

I've used a few 70-200's and all are excellent lenses. I also owned the 70-300L and while it seems to be less popular I found it to be excellent. I sold mine when I got the 100-400 but I sorta miss the slightly wider field of view along with it's compact size. I'd suggest the 70-300L

happyduck wrote in post #19339293
Like your cats Mal do you do Birds

I do birds; used to do them more often. Went from shoreline long lenses to blinds and hides in my yard. Prefer to not have to leave the yard these days. Reach is still king in most situations unless you're baiting them in. So I would go for the longest lens you can, more versatile if a zoom.

Very best,

I'll toss in another vote for the 70-300L. I've had mine since 2013. I have never owned or used a 70-200. I do own the 100-400L II. I can say the 70-300L is much easier to carry

Rod

I have a 70-200L, the f/2.8 version. It's a beautiful lens that I love to use in so many situations. Except birds.

My wife will sometimes go with me on birding outings. I use my 600mm/4 and she uses my 70-300 (non-L) on a crop sensor. She has the option of using the 70-200 and even she doesn't like it.

I agree. It's all about reach.