EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Question

I am considering the 70-300 f4-5.6 vs. the 70-200 f4. On the 70-300, at what focal length does the minimum aperture switch to f5.6? If it is before 200mm, the lens will be a no-go for me. I need all the aperture I can get for night marching band shots.

Appreciate any insight!

Tim

If you are talking about the 70-300 IS L this is a chart I saw in a Ken Rockwell review. I have the lens but do not have access to it right now to check.

http://kenrockwell.com …/lenses/70-300mm-is-l.htm

70mm - f/4
100mm - f/4
135mm - f/4.5
200mm - f/5
300mm - f/5.6

Thank you! So now I have a choice to make - 200mm at f4 or 200mm at f5 and get the 200-300mm as a bonus. There are always trade-offs!

Per DP these are the full ranges:

f/4: 70-103mm
f/4.5 104-154mm
f/5: 155-228mm
f5.6: 229-300mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

tspencer1 wrote in post #18179291
Thank you! So now I have a choice to make - 200mm at f4 or 200mm at f5 and get the 200-300mm as a bonus. There are always trade-offs!

Or just get the 200-400 f/4L 1.4x. (Major trade-off: wallet!)

Bassat wrote in post #18179772
Or just get the 200-400 f/4L 1.4x. (Major trade-off: wallet!)

and the ummmmmm extra weight.

I've seen a few 200-400s in a few locations here in Florida. The owners all seem to like it a lot. That said, I see a lot more 500 f/4 lls out there.

Now, back to the topic.... I used my 70-300L a lot until I got my 100-400 ll. I did very well with it. Our youngest son is "borrowing" it now and he loves it too.

I suggest squeezing your credit card enough to get the 70-200/4L.

Lens maximum aperture is obviously important to you, and even f/5 is 2/3 stop slower. My experience with the 70-300 (non-L) is that its IQ drops off beyond 200mm. You might get better results with the 70-200L and cropping a little.

RodneyCyr wrote in post #18182545
I suggest squeezing your credit card enough to get the 70-200/4L.

I would also prefer the 70-200/4 IS, and possibly a 1.4x teleconverter for more reach when needed.

However, f/4 is still far from ideal in low light. If primes are an option, consider the 135/2 or 200/2.8.

RodneyCyr wrote in post #18182545
Lens maximum aperture is obviously important to you, and even f/5 is 2/3 stop slower. My experience with the 70-300 (non-L) is that its IQ drops off beyond 200mm. You might get better results with the 70-200L and cropping a little.

The OP is interested in the 70-300 L lens.