70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4 OR 70-300 IS?

I sold my 70-300 DO and bought a 70-200 f/4 IS, which I love. But I'm missing the length between 200 and 300. Now, I have my Sigma 80-400, which is a good lens, but I find it's too heavy (it's 4.25 lbs with the tripod ring) to carry around and use handheld with any success. I also have a Canon 1.4 II teleconverter.

So my question: should I use the 70-200 with the extender to get the reach I want, or invest in a 70-300 IS? Or do strength training and use the 80-400?

I'm most interested in sharpness and IQ, and would be shooting birds and the occasional moose or bear. And I handhold almost exclusively. Right now I can't get an infocus shot with the 80-400 to save my life just because of the weight. So I've ruled out a lens longer than 300, which means I need to be able to crop.

Hence my problem... What would you do?

Strength training or 70-200mm with a TC.

The Canon 1.4 Extender on your 70-200 f/4 L IS is a great combo.
It comes in very handy for me.

Both the 300 F/4 IS and 400 F/5.6 are quite a bit lighter than the Sigma 80-400 and will leave it for dead in the IQ department. Then the 70-200 covers the shorter lengths.

I'd take a good look at the new 70-300 L to replace your 70-200 f/4 IS. It does everything your 70-200 can do (except that it's a 1/3 to 1 stop slower as focal lengths increase) but has the 200-300 range included. It's also smaller than the 70-200 f4 and extremely sharp at 300mm.

Final costs will probably be about the same as buying a 70-300 IS USM while keeping your current lenses (and it seems you could sell the 1.4x TC to recuperate cost as well, since as far as I can tell you won't have a lens that can use it if you sell the 70-200).

Now, this would be ideal if you don't absolutely need the f/4 aperture at 200mm on certain days and you want the absolute best image quality in the 200+ range.

That said, the 70-200 f/4 IS performs extremely well with the 1.4x II TC. Most of the IQ degradation is in the corners, which don't apply to your two crop bodies.

I second Revo suggestion but if money is tight then go for the 1.4xTC rather than the 70-300 IS (I went from 70-300 IS to 70-200 F4 LIS + 1.4xTC to 70-300LIS and saw a real improvement at each stage)

I would just add the 1.4x TC to your bag and pop it on the 70-200/f4 IS L when you need it. From an IQ point of view, there is little difference between the 70-200/f4 IS L with a 1.4x TC and the new 70-300/f5.6 IS L lens. Having both is quite an overlap and expense. It's the cheaper option and offers pretty much the same thing. If you wanted to go down a two tele lens route, I would suggest either a 300/f4 IS L or a 400/f5.6 L.

two thoughts:

- the OP is discussing getting the 70-300 IS not the LIS
- talking only for my two examples the IQ and focus speed of the 70-300 LIS is noticeably better than the 70-200 f4LIS + canon mk2 1.4xTC (in fact for my copies, the 70-300 LIS is comparable / slightly better than the bare 70-200 f4LIS)

The 70-200/4 L IS takes TCs very well. I even use my Vivitar 2x TC and get great resuLts and AF as well on my 7D, 60D.

if i was in your shoes i would get 70-300L IS, reason is its smaller then 70-200 and its quit handy

Thank you for all your replies! Yes, I was not talking about the 70-300 L IS - it is cost prohibitive right now. I'll try the 70-200 with the TC for a while and see if it works for me.

oldcanon wrote in post #12153765
two thoughts:

- the OP is discussing getting the 70-300 IS not the LIS
- talking only for my two examples the IQ and focus speed of the 70-300 LIS is noticeably better than the 70-200 f4LIS + canon mk2 1.4xTC (in fact for my copies, the 70-300 LIS is comparable / slightly better than the bare 70-200 f4LIS)

Ok, if it's between a 70-300 IS and a 70-200/f4 IS L with a 1.4x TC, then I'd certainly go for the latter 70-200/f4 IS with a TC.

The new 70-300/f5.6 IS L is a superb lens, but it's specs are very simular to a 70-200/f4 IS L with a 1.4x TC that there is no real point in having both. It's an either / or situation, no losers, just two great lens choices. Both lenses have slight advantages and disadvantages over each other but none of them are deal breakers.

Kasrielle wrote in post #12156573
Thank you for all your replies! Yes, I was not talking about the 70-300 L IS - it is cost prohibitive right now. I'll try the 70-200 with the TC for a while and see if it works for me.

I was speaking of replacing your 70-200 + TC with a 70-300 L. The final cost of the 70-300 L would be cheaper than buying the 70-300 IS USM after you sell the 70-200 and TC.

However, the 70-300 IS USM, while a great lens, is most weak from 200-300mm. Though for the price, it's a great lens considering it has very nice IS. That said, your 70-200 + 1.4 TC are definitely sharper in the center (corners are probably about the same) at 280mm as the 70-300 is at 300.

ever considered the 100-400 f4-5.6L IS USM? It's cheaper than the 70-300L but you still get the same great build quality, optics and IS USM. yes it may be 30mm more on the wide end but it sounds like you tend to shoot in the longer end of the focal length anyway, plus if you are using a crop-sensor body, you're effectively getting 160-640mm field of view

pixelprince wrote in post #12157895
ever considered the 100-400 f4-5.6L IS USM? It's cheaper than the 70-300L but you still get the same great build quality, optics and IS USM. yes it may be 30mm more on the wide end but it sounds like you tend to shoot in the longer end of the focal length anyway, plus if you are using a crop-sensor body, you're effectively getting 160-640mm field of view

Yes, but the 100-400 will be a downgrade from his 70-200 in image quality (where as the 70-300 L is not). Also, the 100-400 is very heavy, which does not help with the problem he is trying to solve (getting reach past 200mm without using his Sigma 120-400, which he cites as too heavy).

That's also not to say how redundant it will be having 100-400 and 120-400mm lenses...