70-300mm f/4-5-6 or 70-200mm f/4L + 1.4tc

[cab1024]

For birding and all-around telephoto use what do you think is the better lens setup, the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, or, the 70-200 f/4L IS and waiting a good while to get a 1.4x teleconverter?

I have about $500US to spend right now and was planning to get the 70-300 for the length and the image stabilization for $460. But I didn't realize the 70-200 L-series and faster f/4 was only about $570US until today. It is certainly the better lens, but I'd be willing to sacrifice IQ for length -- if the extra length is worth it.

So that's the big question is there a significant enough difference, for the purposes of birding, between 200 and 300mm?

I have the 28-135mm f/4-5.6 and the 18-55 f/4-5.6. The only other addition I might be able to make is getting the teleconverter in 6+ months, which would make the 70-200 a 100-280 f/5.6, right? At the long end of that which lens would have the better IQ, and focus faster?

[Matt_RTH]

70-200 F4 with L 1.4 TC will kill the consumer 70-300mm lens. IS is the big variable. If it's for birding, then I'd just save the nickels to get a 100-400mm. With a cost of either 600 or 1200 magnitude, the cost is relatively small amortized over how long it will be useful.

The 70-200mm is tack sharp wide open. The 70-300mm will have to be stopped down to at least 6.3 or even 7.1 (realistically f8) to come close. That's almost 2 stops disadvantage (or about 1 stop if add TC to the 200).

[Jaff]

Someone asked this exact question not too long ago.

You''l find all you need to know here http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=129288

Regards.

[eastwood]

I bought the 70-300, intending to use it as a walk along lens. (I already have the 100-400 at that time) The lens is now in the shelf most of the time except when I want to get around for some scenic casual shots. I wish I have bought the 70-200 instead!

[cab1024]

Someone asked this exact question not too long ago.

You''l find all you need to know here http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=129288

Regards.

Thanks. Good read. I did use the search engine extensively, without finding that post, before posting my own question :-)

So it looks like I'll be aiming for the 70-200 f/4L and saving up either for a tc, or a 400mm zoom or prime next.

I think I read that the lens will take a Canon 2x tc, as well, and still autofocus. Anybody have experience with that?

[Roy C]

I think I read that the lens will take a Canon 2x tc, as well, and still autofocus. Anybody have experience with that?
The 70-200 f4 will only AF with a 2x on a 1 series body as you are up to f8. It takes the 1.4 tc very well though.

[cab1024]

The 70-200 f4 will only AF with a 2x on a 1 series body as you are up to f8. It takes the 1.4 tc very well though.

Ahh, I have the 40D, so I guess it wouldn't work. But the lens comparisons from here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=113&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3) convince me the 70-200 is the way to go, even with teleconverters to go beyond 200mm. At least compared to the 70-300 and 100-400 Canons. Not quite as good as the 100-400 in the upper range, but not as much of a difference as compare to the 70-300. At least by my reading.

[wings]

The 70-200/f4L lens is a great lens. But be aware that there are two models, one with and one without IS. The one with IS costs $500 more, or double the price of the former. If you get either model, you'll probably not want to use the 70-300 IS again. At least that would be for me if I were in your situation.