70-200 f/4 L IS or 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS

I recently rented the 70-200/4 IS for a trip, loved the lens for landscape photos (I primarily do landscape work). Impressed so much I wouldn't hesitate to buy one. Only thing is the 70-300/4-5.6 L. Most reviews give the slight edge in IQ to the 70-200. BUT, an extra 100mm on the long end might be useful...

I will probably rent the 70-300 on my next trip, but I'd love to hear others' experiences with both of these lenses.

My biggest considerations are:
1. IQ
2. Size/weight

I didnt find the 70-200 to be too heavy, but the length was a bit akward in a small day hiking bag.

As far as the 70-300 goes, I have no experience, but the reversed zoom/focus rings seems very odd.

Any thoughts for a landscaper choosing between these two?

I own the 70-300L.
If I owned the 70-200L of any flavor I would soon be lusting for the new 100-400L II!!!! Heck I am still wanting it.
I use my 70-300L very frequently with my 1.4X Kenko Pro multiplier as always seem to want more reach for critters.
I love my 70-300L for landscape use when needing a little magnification. It is such a handy telephoto. Not too heavy, packs easily as is short, takes a polarizer nicely. Never have been bothered by the focus ring. When not using it I primarily use my 24-70.

So - one lens - 70-300, two lenses 70-200 and 100-400.

Really depends on what you shoot and how much reach you need / desire.

I like my combo of 70-200mm f/4L IS and 100-400Lc.

I don't think you need to be at all concerned with "IQ" on any of these lenses. These zooms are all well beyond your average zoom in image quality.

Needs differ, so it's hard to recommend, only what I would do.
for me the 70-200mm range needs to be in f/2.8.
I also would like the extra 100mm,

So you see which I would go for.

Heya,

Well, you're going to be stopping down, so I don't see any reason to worry about the maximum aperture, nor image quality at this point, as they will be essentially the same in your real world application. Instead, look at weight, size and overall focal range that is useful for your needs in landscaping.

For this, I'd go 70-300L.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17587858
Heya,

Well, you're going to be stopping down, so I don't see any reason to worry about the maximum aperture, nor image quality at this point, as they will be essentially the same in your real world application. Instead, look at weight, size and overall focal range that is useful for your needs in landscaping.

For this, I'd go 70-300L.

Very best,

I agree for these same reasons, plus since this will be your only telephoto the additional 100mm reach adds versatility.

And this recommendation comes from a long time owner of the 70-200mm f/4 IS, which I think is an exceptional lens.

I went from the 70-200 f4 IS to the 70-300 L and other than the weight I'm glad I did. It's as sharp but has a little better contrast.

I have the 70-200 2.8mk2
70-200 F/4IS
and the 70-300 f/4-5.5IS as well
The 70-200 2.8 mk2 outperforms the other other two in sharpness, IQ and AF speed. It's not by a lot but it does
The lens that surprises me the most is the 70-300. It is just a super versatile amazing lens. Out of your choices I would choose that one.
I have a BAD case of GAS...I also have the 100-400mk2 which is super versatile as well. Mine is just not as sharp as these other 3 although it lives on my 7Dmk2

id10t wrote in post #17587942
I went from the 70-200 f4 IS to the 70-300 L and other than the weight I'm glad I did. It's as sharp but has a little better contrast.

I also sold my much-loved 70-200 f4 IS to get the 70-300L and have never regretted my decision. The 70-300L is an outstanding lens. I have no hesitation in recommending it.

I have the 70-200 4 IS, and I tried a few versions of 70-300. The 70-300 did not give me enough reach, so I finally got the 100-400 II.

I know you didn't mention this as a major factor, but don't forget that there is a 70-200mm f/4 non-IS for a little over half the price of the IS version. If your camera's going to be on a tripod for landscapes, this tradeoff might be acceptable. (Interestingly, the 70-300 IS and 70-200/4 are exactly the same price on Amazon right now.)

feeda wrote in post #17589842
I know you didn't mention this as a major factor, but don't forget that there is a 70-200mm f/4 non-IS for a little over half the price of the IS version. If your camera's going to be on a tripod for landscapes, this tradeoff might be acceptable. (Interestingly, the 70-300 IS and 70-200/4 are exactly the same price on Amazon right now.)

That would be the 70-300 IS non-L . This thread is discussing the L version, which is in a completely different league. The non-L is overpriced for what it is.

That is not correct. There is indeed a 70-200 F/4 L NON IS. I have one!
OOPS I just realized you were talking about the PRICE of the two on amazon! Sorry about that

I am also another convert. I sold my 70-200 f/4 IS which I loved for its IQ and
lightness.

I bought a 70-300 f4/5.6 L and I am totally happy with the change. The lens
is amazingly sharp and I took to the zoom ring pretty easily.

I have an 100-400 on order but I may keep the 70-300 for my travel bag and
to use as a landscape lens. It is really easy to carry in any of my bags which
the heavier 100-400 I know will not be.

good luck!

The 70-300L is likely to be the first lens (after the kit 24-105L) I get for my 5D3 (due tomorrow). The samples thread impressed me, and the versatility of having 70-300 all at once is more appealing - and cheaper! - than the 70-200/4L IS plus the 1.4Xiii and by the time I hypothetically add the 2Xiii, I'd rather just spend a bit more and get the 100-400ii. That's my reasoning, FWIW. Whatever you do, please report back what you did and how you like it!

Edit: Dammit, typo