Canon 70-300Lf/ 4-5.6 IS vs 70-200L f/4 IS USM

[jayson]

This is a tough one.

Is the 70-300L IS f/4-5.6 as sharp as the 70-200 f/4 IS ?

If one had to choose between the two for portrait and wildlife application, which would it be.

How big an impact is the 1-stop for background blur ?

Bokeh?

J

[Johann van Rensburg]

Depends on how important the IS is to you.

If not, then strangely enough the 70-200 2.8 NON IS is still listed on ODP shop list, for only just over 12K

http://www.outdoorphotoshop.co.za/Pr...tid=2569A018AA

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

I personally think the 70-200 f/4 L IS is slightly sharper than the 70-300L but pretty short for any "wildlife"

[jayson]

The question is how big is the difference?
Can I give up my 70-200L f/4 IS with 1.4x extender and use the 70-300L IS instead ?
It is expensive to keep both lenses :-)

[DaveK]

This is such a close call. Are you happy with 1.4 on 200? I know its cliched, but this is really a situation where you almost have to rent the 70-300, try it, preferably next to you current combo, and decide. That 70-200 is a lovely little lens, so its not going to be easy. I personally suspect that the 70-300 is very underrated. THe digital picture gives some helpful advice on making the decision in its lens reviews. Good luck. My personal take would be that if you are using the 1.4 on the 200 for a lot of your shooting, I would certainly get the 300.
Dave.

[jayson]

I add the 1.4x converter on for birds, otherwise I shoot the 70-200 as is. I loose a lot of time in the field adding the converter which is why I wanted the reach of 300, however I use the 70-200 f/4 often for candids and events. It's sharp and at f/4 at 200 I get really great background blur. Also the consistent f/4 makes manual camera mode easier.

[LeonardF]

The 70-200 is a great range for Portraits but not a good range for wildlife unless you are planning a trip to the zoo. Wildlife really needs 400 and longer especially for birding and a good starting point, on a budget, would be a 100-400L lens (Value for money). So my 5 cents: keep the 70-200 F/4 IS for the portraits and start saving for a second hand 100-400L (make sure you get a sharp copy)

[DaveK]

In that case, keep what you have and save for the 400/5.6 - even a second hand copy which could come up for around 9000? - excellent value for money, perfect for birds on crop, whereas the 300 will still really be too short in most cases. Don't compromise your nifty 70-200 that you love and use for potential birds with 300. if you use the 70-200 and 400 you will be working with 2 of Canons very sharp and excellent value glass.
ENjoy
Dave.

[jayson]

Thanks everyone for the input. I have gone for the 70-300L f/4-5.6 IS
I will be selling my 70-200L f/4 IS USM.
Wish me luck. Hope I don't miss the 70-200. J.