70-200 f4IS vs. 70-300L

I own and love a 70-200 f4 IS. It's an outstanding lens, sharp, versatile and easy to carry. However, I've recently been finding it a bit short, especially when photographing dog agility and frisbee events, and have begun to think about selling it in favour of a 70-300L. My question for those of you who have used both lenses is: do you think this would be a good decision? I can't afford both; I'd have to sell the 70-200 in order to buythe 70-300.

My main concern is weight. I use the 70-200 to photograph outdoor sports, but also on family outings, when I don't want to lug heavy equipment (zoo, trips with kids, etc.). I used to own an f2.8 non-IS version of the 70-200, but sold it because of the weight. Weight is also the main reason why I'm not also considering the 100-400, which I've tried and consider too heavy for my needs.

I'm also concerned about being disappointed with the 70-300, given that the 70-200 is such a magnificent piece of equipment. All input gratefully received.

I cant comment on the 70-300L as I havent used one. But have you considered adding a 1.4 extender? Other than losing a stop, its very little loss of sharpness on the f4IS.

Read this:
http://dancarrphotogra​phy.com …review-vs-70-200-f4-l-is/

gonzogolf wrote in post #14883722
I cant comment on the 70-300L as I havent used one. But have you considered adding a 1.4 extender? Other than losing a stop, its very little loss of sharpness on the f4IS.

The 70-200 f/4 IS handles a 1.4x extender quite well, so this is certainly a very viable option -- especially if you only occasionally need additional reach beyond 200mm. However, if you think you would be using the extender for the vast majority of your shots, then the 70-300L is probably a better option for you.

I have the 70-300 (non L) and liked it alot on my 7D. I have yet to try it on the new 5D but even though I plan on getting the 70-200 2.8 IS mkI (tomorrow hopefully) I am going to keep the 70-300 for exactly what you mentioned. I don't want to lug that beast around for family outtings but want the 2.8 capabilities for indoors and sports. For the price, I'd keep what you have and add the 70-300 IS and you'd be covered.

I have used both the 70-200 f4 lis and the 70-300 Lis and I personally favored the IQ on the 70_200F4lis. To add to that, I also had at the same time the 70-200 2.8 II

Bottom line I sold my 70-200 F4 Lis and returned the 70-300L and kept the 70-200 2.8II

Now I will say, I REALLY liked my 70-200F4 Lis and may even buy it again , for those times I dont need the 2.8 and want to go light.

I seen a couple polls and the 70_200 2.8 II always was the winner as best zoom lens. It's just an outstanding lens, if you dont mind the weight.

Photography, decisions/compromises, always ...

I'm going to concur with the suggestion of a 1.4x TC. IQ with the TC will still be close enough to the 70-300L, with (maybe) a touch slower A/F. The versatility of having the 70-200 range @ f/4, is a nice option, that going with the 70-300 won't give you.

100mm isn't THAT much imo. Go 100-400 if you constantly finding yourself shooting long.

kin2son wrote in post #14884093
100mm isn't THAT much imo. Go 100-400 if you constantly finding yourself shooting long.

Read the OP

1Tanker wrote in post #14884098
Read the OP

Oops:o

Well it's all about sacrifice sometimes....I'm just afraid that OP will come back in a month saying 300mm isn't that much of an increase and looking for something longer again:p

Because seriously, 100mm is a bugger all diff when it comes to needing more reach

100mm was enough of a difference for me to make the switch from the 2.8 to the 70-300L after moving from crop to FF. That was a very good review above, but subject isolation is not ONLY about faster apertures. At 300mm, the background will melt away just as nicely from the subject. It depends how far away you are from your subject just as much as the aperture matters. Also, its SHARP. This lens is new for me but so far I've 90% used it at 300mm the entire time, and I can say that it is a wash to see any difference between the sharpness of the 2.8 and this one. I'm using this lens for outdoor equestrian sports, but lately this lens has brought my attention to bug and nature photography as well.

Why don't you rent the lens first to see if you like it? Its the only way you will see if you like/dislike the difference in weight, heft (its beefier than the 70-200 f/4, but shorter) etc. Check out the photo sample thread for this lens too!

I am an advid dog agility competitor and judge, and use my 70-300L for outdoor agility events with great results. Indoor trials though even an f2.8 lens is difficult-- in fact, I've found the 85mm f1.8 to be great (BTW -- I shoot with a 40D). I have a friend that has made a business shooting indoor agility events and his go to lens has been the 85mm on his 7D, but he also shoots with a 70-200 f2.8 MkI. Here is an interesting review of the 70-300L from Caonon Rumors:

http://www.canonrumors​.com …70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/

70-200 f/4 non IS
you will get a very sharp images and in a good price
and not heavy
you can put it in a small bag

aha
you have the 70-200 f/4 IS
i thought you want to buy
i will say
if im in your place
i will stay with the 70-200 f/4 IS
from today i will not think of something called ( reach )
if i want a real reach then the 500mm lens will be my target

I would consider a used 300mm f4. Very sharp, lightweight, IS. Perfect. A second suggestion would be to try the 1.4 extender.