Choice between 2

[bobandcar]

If you owned a 70-300 is lens
Would there be a significant improvement to sell or trade it for a
70-200 f4l lens?

 

[gw2424]

YES! YES! YES!

nuff' said

 

[Dao]

If you owned a 70-300 is lens
Would there be a significant improvement to sell or trade it for a
70-200 f4l lens?

There are improvement for sure. It depends on the type of photos you take as well. Personally I will trade it, but it really depends on your expectation.

Both 70-300mm IS and 70-200mm f/4L are good, and the L is a little sharper.

I shot this with 70-300mm at 300mm
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7077/7168289378_07d9b611b1_b.jpg

And this with 70-200mm at 200mm
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8148/7162153026_0ec691c0be_c.jpg


I think both are not bad. With the 70-200mm, you gain a slightly sharper result especially at the longer focal length. The front element will not rotate when focus. The lens will not extent when zooming. Full time manual focus. Better body build and better out of focus blur, or say the quality of the bokeh.

If none of these matters you, then it is for sure not worth the upgrade.

 

[bobandcar]

Mainly looking for sharpness.


If I took the exact same shot with the 2 lenses.
And cropped the one at 200 on the l lens so that it was equal size to a shot on the 300 at 300mm, then, which one would be sharper?


I also like other features or the l lens to but also like the IS on the 70-300(70-200 f4 is is to pricey for me right now)

 

[Dao]

For sure the L is sharper.

Just for your information, the price of the 70-200mm f/4L lens is quite good today.

Both Adorama and BH are selling it for $559 now (as of this sec). You need to add the lens to the cart to see the price. It was the same price in Amazon as well (Sold by Amazon), but it seems like it is gone now in Amazon.

 

[Jacobwilson]

I'd opt for the 70-200 with IS everyday over the non-IS.

 

[bobandcar]

I'd opt for the 70-200 with IS everyday over the non-IS.

Wasn't in the options.
The extra 4-500 would make it a no go

 

[nycphotography]

If you owned a 70-300 is lens
Would there be a significant improvement to sell or trade it for a
70-200 f4l lens?

I'm guessing this is a Canon question? In Nikon land, the 80-200 f2.8 ED (non AIS) is absolutely worth the upgrade. It's not VR and not AIS (slower focusing), but it's also less than half the price.

Does Canon have an equivalent f2.8 zoom in the $1000 price range?

 

[o hey tyler]

I'm guessing this is a Canon question? In Nikon land, the 80-200 f2.8 ED (non AIS) is absolutely worth the upgrade. It's not VR and not AIS (slower focusing), but it's also less than half the price.

Does Canon have an equivalent f2.8 zoom in the $1000 price range?

Yes, they also made an 80-200/2.8 but it seems to be scarce.