EF 70-300mm F4-5.6(IS) vs. EF 70-200 F4L (IS)

[Rhilton4u]

Other than the white colored body and superior build, does THIS particular L series lens actually take sharper or better pictures? Later down the road I'm planning on upgrading to one of these zooms and want to justify spending an extra $500 for the latter. Any extra features on the L series that don't come with the other? I've never owned an L series, but I've heard that this particular regular lens is pretty good.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/397663.jpghttp://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/457678.jpg
EF 70-300mm F4-5.6 (IS)____EF 70-200 F4L (IS)

[ibdb]

I have the 70-300 IS and 70-200 f/4L (non-IS). They're both great lenses. The 70-200 f/4L IS, from what I've read, is in another world, however. The test results (I know, not real life shots) put the IS version as one of the best lenses Canon has ever made.

[Rhilton4u]

I have the 70-300 IS and 70-200 f/4L (non-IS). They're both great lenses. The 70-200 f/4L IS, from what I've read, is in another world, however. The test results (I know, not real life shots) put the IS version as one of the best lenses Canon has ever made.I certainly hope so for the price...it's a new lens and I've read a couple of reviews on the net. However at the same time, I've never heard anybody complain about the the 70-300 IS. In fact, most people think it's outstanding for the price. I'm just wondering if the new L series lens can be that much MORE outstanding as to justify the extra $.

[ibdb]

Between the two I have, the -200 is definitely faster to focus, has internal focusing (making the use of a circular polarizer easier), and has a great feel in the hands. Neither of mine are weather sealed, though the new f/4 IS is.

What I've read about the -200 f/4 IS is that it tests out as a sharper lens than the much lusted after 70-200 f/2.8 IS, in a much smaller package.

Depends on what you'll be shooting, in what conditions, and with what budget. If you need fast focus, choose the L or L + IS. If you need weather sealing, chose the L + IS. If you don't want to spend twice as much, skip the L + IS, but look at the L or the -300. If you need the extra length, the -300 has it. If you need a smaller package, the -300 has that, too.

If you can swing the L + IS without too much sacrifice, it sure looks appealing. In the end, only you can decide how much image quality is enough.

Here are a couple of recent threads from me with shots using the 70-300 IS:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=282916
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=283050

I was quite happy with the lens on that trip, though I wish it had focused a touch faster from some other shots I took (not posted in those threads).

[Rhilton4u]

Hey thanks...it's still a tough decision. I've been looking at that F4L (IS) and drooling...but trying to convince myself not to drop extra cash just because it's a "more professional L-series, lens" if it's going to be taking pictures just as nice for half the price. :cool:

I just looked at those examples you cited and that just makes it harder! LOL. I don't see any flaws in the 70-300!