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

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17590013
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 70-400/4L 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!

70-400L? I wish my local store stocked that.

I'm going through the same process of dilemma...but I'm more inclined to 70-200L as I already hv 135L & 300L...either 70-200L or 100-400L would fulfill me better on versatility...

The 70-200 2.8L Mk2 is very sharp with excellent IQ A bit better than the 70-200 f/4 IS

gqllc007 wrote in post #17591356
The 70-200 2.8L Mk2 is very sharp with excellent IQ A bit better than the 70-200 f/4 IS

Typically, if the 70-200ii is in play, no one is worried about the 70-200/4 or 70-300 options.

gqllc007 wrote in post #17591356
The 70-200 2.8L Mk2 is very sharp with excellent IQ A bit better than the 70-200 f/4 IS

It is also bigger, heavier and more expensive. The 70-200 f/4L IS is part of my kit because it is a smaller and lighter alternative to my 100-400L II when I want to travel lighter and will not need the additional reach. In fact, it will be in the bag for an upcoming long weekend trip to Mackinac Island and the 100-400L will be staying home, as I will not be shooting wildlife on the island.

I have all 3 and when I travel I take the 70-300 L IS. If I will be out all day and weight is a concern locally I will bring the 70-200 f/4

Thanks for the replies. I plan on renting the 70-300L soon for an upcoming camping trip. For me, the 70-200/2.8 is off the table due to price, but more importantly size and weight. I typically have to fo a fair bit of hiking/bushwhacking to get where I'm going. With a pack full of supplies, plus camera gear, space is at a premium, and every ounce counts. Not to mention "wide-open" for me is usually f8

Hike.
I do not have the 70-300 L. However I do have the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II and the 70-200 f/4 L IS. Why both? After owning the f/4 for a couple of years the f/2.8 Mark II was introduced. So I bought the new Mark II. Tremendous lens. However that need for the smaller lighter lens was already bought and paid for. To this day I still and will continue to own both. The 70-200 f/4 L IS with constant aperture, superb image quality and the ability to add a 1.4x EXIII extender for more reach.
Tough choice, YES
Wrong Choice, NO

I like lenses 70 - 200, ,i think lenses 70 - 300 simple and super tele..but not good at night photo.

I'm currently using the 70-300L and 24-105L and I spend a lot of time in Botanical gardens with a normal size of 85+ acres and dirt paths to walk through.

The 70-300L handles well and I spend many hours walking through them without a problem.

I have it attached to a gripped 7D mk II and wouldn't have any issues using it on a hike.

The lens is stellar in performance and having the 24-105L to change up to makes the range of use perfect for all that I shoot.

Having the 7D mk II to use in lower light with the better ISO performance keeps me going well into dimmer light.

I have been thinking about picking up the 70-200L as it is lighter in weight and that would be for use on my wife's camera as she does find the 70-300L a little heavy for her use.

The cost was higher but now I'm seeing them pop up on the Canon refurbished site for around $120.00 more than the 70-200 F4 IS L which isn't very much for 100mm more but you are also losing one stop of light on the longer end?

All in all for what I use it for the 70-300L has been a wonderful lens with that extra 100mm reach.