Canon 70-200 F4L IS for owner of 70-300 IS USM?

So i had the 70-200 F4L non-IS when i picked up the 70-300 IS USM for a good price. After doing some quick comparision, i decided that the 70-300 is sufficient for me and sold the 70-200 to fund some other L lenses. Now i have been getting interested in the 70-200 F4L "IS". Found a good deal on a six month old mint lens for 800. Just wondering if it makes sense to own it alongwith the 70-300 IS (non-L) ... Any thoughts?

Heya,

The 70-200 F4L IS will be on your camera more often than that 70-300, unless you live at 300mm. In which case, if you do, save up and get a 100-400 and call it a day since that's the direction you're heading.

Very best,

I have the 70-200 F4IS and I love it. Its sharper, than the non-IS version. From what I understand its a better lens than the non L 70-300 IS. But if you like the 70-300 you might just put a little cash and get the 70-300L or 100-400L, to replace your current lens.

My main application is portraits and some fast action/outdoor photography - mainly kids playing/running around in th park. For this i need good bokeh and fast autofocus/tracking capability. Is a 100-400 better for these applications than the 70-200 F4 IS?

MEJazz wrote in post #16824441
My main application is portraits and some fast action/outdoor photography - mainly kids playing/running around in th park. For this i need good bokeh and fast autofocus/tracking capability. Is a 100-400 better for these applications than the 70-200 F4 IS?

If thats your goal, get a 2.8 lens.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16824456
If thats your goal, get a 2.8 lens.

Except its either: (a) Too expensive, or (b) Too heavy, or (c) Both!

I am not a pro, just a hobbyist/family photoG so would like smaller/lighter/cheape​r lenses. That's why F4 IS is attractive to me.

MEJazz wrote in post #16824478
Except its either: (a) Too expensive, or (b) Too heavy, or (c) Both!

I am not a pro, just a hobbyist/family photoG so would like smaller/lighter/cheape​r lenses. That's why F4 IS is attractive to me.

Then you have to adjust your wishlist a bit, killer bokeh and f4 are not usually combinations you put together. You could forego a zoom and get the 200 2.8L which is not expensive nor heavy, or the 135L which is pricey but awesome.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16824489
Then you have to adjust your wishlist a bit, killer bokeh and f4 are not usually combinations you put together. You could forego a zoom and get the 200 2.8L which is not expensive nor heavy, or the 135L which is pricey but awesome.

YES!!! That is in the pipeline; i love primes so absolutely will go for 200/2.8L. I have tried 135/2L but found it too close in FL to my 100/2.8 and am very satisfied with the 100/2.8 so returned the 135. Sure it was better, but for a limited budget hobbyist was overkill. My 100/2.8 has replaced my 85/1.8 and 135/2 for portraits.

But almost new 70-200 F4L IS for $800 is tempting so that's what this thread is about - and also i thought it will provide better image quality than 70-300 IS and will be the zoom for outdoors when one is needed.

MEJazz wrote in post #16824521
YES!!! That is in the pipeline; i love primes so absolutely will go for 200/2.8L. I have tried 135/2L but found it too close in FL to my 100/2.8 and am very satisfied with the 100/2.8 so returned the 135. Sure it was better, but for a limited budget hobbyist was overkill. My 100/2.8 has replaced my 85/1.8 and 135/2 for portraits.

But almost new 70-200 F4L IS for $800 is tempting so that's what this thread is about - and also i thought it will provide better image quality than 70-300 IS and will be the zoom for outdoors when one is needed.

If you can live without the range from 200 to 300, its an upgrade. Its only when you started listing what you hoped to get out of it that the game changed a bit.

I love my 70-200/4 IS for doing what you are looking to use it for. Its going to have faster focusing and thus better AF performance to the 70-300 nonL as well as a sharper image. If you need 300mm, you could pick up a used 1.4 TC and still be sharper. However if, and as has already been mentioned, 300mm is where you think you would spend a lot of time, look for a used 70-300 L instead.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16824489
Then you have to adjust your wishlist a bit, killer bokeh and f4 are not usually combinations you put together.

If the framing is kept tight, the 70-200/4 IS can deliver the blur, especially on a FF camera like the 6d the OP has.

MEJazz wrote in post #16824521
But almost new 70-200 F4L IS for $800 is tempting so that's what this thread is about - and also i thought it will provide better image quality than 70-300 IS and will be the zoom for outdoors when one is needed.

Yes, the f4 IS is a better zoom for what you want to do. Its autofocus is much faster than the 70-300 non-L (which I used to own and never really liked), and it will give you better colour and contrast as well. The IS is very effective and useful for low light shots. $800 is a great price. In your shoes, I would buy it.

As an aside, I owned and loved the f4 IS for many years, but sold it earlier this year to fund an unmissable deal on a 70-300L. I regretted the sale as soon as the buyer drove off with the lens. Six weeks later she contacted me to say she was going to sell it (she was a wedding photographer and had decided to get a prime instead). I bought it back without hesitation. Once you've owned this lens, it's hard to let it go.

As for the background blur or subject isolation: the f4 IS will do a good job with that too. The shot below was taken in a park with the f4 IS on a crop camera.

Jazz. You better grab it fast. Love the f4 L IS as do others.

Cool, looks like a definite buy then. Thanks all!

I used to own the 70-300 IS (non-L) before upgrading to the 70-200 f/4 IS about a year after the "L" was introduced by Canon. The "L" is on a completely different level in all aspects -- image sharpness and quality, AF performance, build, etc. Even when attaching a 1.4x teleconvertor, the 70-200 outperformed the 70-300 non-L. I found the 70-300 soft at 300mm, and the AF would hunt, especially in lower light.

I would suggest grabbing that 70-200 for $800, then selling the 70-300 and using those funds for a 1.4x TC if you think you will miss the added reach of the 70-300. Personally, I almost never use the TC anymore, but I also own a 100-400L for those times when I need more reach.