70-200 F4 IS Vs 70-300L

With the $200 discount off the 70-300L and a choice between the two, the 70-300L looks like a real bargain.
I have the older 70-200 F4 non IS and I'm thinking this would be a great tradeup. Opinions ?

They are both excellent lenses. Would you rather have the extra 100mm of reach or the constant f/4 aperture? Both are similar in weight, although the 70-300L is more compact when collapsed at its minimum focal length. The 70-200 IS also takes a 1.4x teleconvertor very well, which will get you almost the same reach if you only need the added focal length occasionally.

I own the 70-200 f/4 IS, but I purchased the lens years before the 70-300L was ever announced. I like the constant f/4 max aperture when I shoot ice hockey, and I solved my reach needs by purchasing a 100-400L for wildlife. The 70-200 is more of a general purpose telephoto for me when I do not anticipate much critical wildlife shooting, or when I really want to travel lighter.

Yes, do it. I own and love the 70-200 f4 IS, but I tried a 70-300L last year and was blown away by it. It's an outstanding lens. If I could bring myself to sell my 70-200, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, and if I were starting from scratch today, I'd definitely choose the 70-300L.

Get the 70-300L.

F4 is slow as is, it wouldn't matter that much to lose another stop but gain 100mm.

Now if you were considering the 2.8 variant, my answer would be different.

I have the 70-200 f4L IS and also the 100-400. I like the constant, faster aperture and light weight of the 70-200 for night time stage productions. I use the 100-400 for its reach in wildlife photography.

I have thought about switching my 300mm f/4L IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses for the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS since I would certainly not lose much on the switch but, I really like the f/4 aperture of the 300mm f/4L IS and the constant aperture of the 70-300mm f/4L IS.

I shoot wide open frequently with both of these lenses and shooting in aperture priority allows me to keep a constant shutter speed. I also like the increased selective focus capability of the 300mm f/4L IS lens.

I have a 1.4x TC which I occasionally use on the 300mm f/4L IS when I need a longer focal length than 300mm and when don't want to carry my 400mm f/5.6L lens...

Additionally, since I carry this lens virtually everywhere as part of a set with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on a pair of 7D cameras, the fact that it is 30% lighter in weight and is a more narrow lens (fits better in my holster case) are also considerations...

I have 70-200/F4 L IS. It's super sharp and has good reach on my T1i.

Now I am moving to 6D, 200mm is no longer a good reach. I am planning to add 100-400L in the future.

Just love 70-200/F4 L IS and don't want to part with it.

How does 1.4 III extender work with 70-200? That will extend the reach to 280mm and still maintain 5.6 aperture.

I own both the 70-200 F4 is, and the 70-300L is, they both have there merits, I've used the 70-300L for shooting birds, critters, and weddings ( family only ) IQ is fantastic on both lens, but the extra 100mm of the 70-300L really makes this the lens that is on my 7D the most, it fits in the back pack with the hood on and ready to go, were as the 70-200 is to long. having the constant F4 can have its own merits as well!!
if I had to have only one I'd go with the 70-300L. it is heavier but I'm ok with that.

Hand held...... little over 2 1/2 metre 1/640 F6.3 300mm the IS is fantastic sometimes!!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/98082677@N06/9​294417437/

Buying from scratch I would probably go for the 70-300L. I have the 70-200 f4 IS at the moment, but I like it too much to sell it.

It look's great on your assistant lol............Taken with a 70-200L f4 is

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …98082677@N06/10​700054514/

I am blown away by my 70-300L. AF and IS performance are top notch. It is very compact when retracted, with the hood on reverse it is pretty discreet.

What camera are you going to use it with? It seems to be built for crops with a very high resolution that can utilize the dense sensors and a good weight distribution for them.

Flickr Set:
www.flickr.com/photos/​61744772@N06/sets/7215​7631450316608/

Pretty impressive images, especially that Giraffe. The detail combo of the 70-300L and the 70D is a pretty awesome package.
Thats one thing about the 100-400 I find lacking, its low light performance just isn't the greatest.

Bsmooth wrote in post #16428822
Pretty impressive images, especially that Giraffe. The detail combo of the 70-300L and the 70D is a pretty awesome package.
Thats one thing about the 100-400 I find lacking, its low light performance just isn't the greatest.

Low light performance of the 70-300L should be the same as the 100-400L -- they are both f/5.6 at their maximum focal length. The 70-300 may focus a little quicker, but the 100-400L isn't bad in this regard, either.