70-200 f/4 or 70-300 with IS

70-200 f/4 70-300 f/4-5.6
$600 usd $494 usd
L USM USM IS
internal focus ???
manual override ???

not crazy about the 5.6 on the long end but i do get a longer lens and IS. is the L glass and f/4 better than IS and an extra 100 mm? cannot decide which i should get. have the 400L so it is not so much about the reach, but for less money i seem to get more, no? thanks for advice.

over discussed.

do a search.

and only you will have an answer.

A recent topic that may be of interest.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=601866

There are a lot of threads on this comparison. Go try a quick search and you will find some results. In short, it will come down to what you want to shoot. If it is for general family shooting the 70-300 is a great choice and if for sports, etc. the 70-200 L.

It's perhaps the single most common comparison for lenses.

When I faced it, I ended up choosing the F4L. Partially, it was because I wanted to experience an 'L' (I would be constantly wondering if I ever got the 70-300). On the one hand, it's good - I now know what an 'L' is like. On the other hand, it's bad - I now know what it is like, and I don't really want non-L lenses anymore.

i opted for the 70-300...and haven't once wondered what the 70-200f/4 is like...i'm perfectly happy with my lens, and could only see myself replacing it with the 100-400...the fact that you already have the 400mm though, i think i'd go for the 70-200...but it all depends on how much you would need IS...if you're shooting sports, then it won't matter

The IS is really really convenient. I shot a one second exposure of a waterfall with the 70-300 once and it came out sharp as hell. Of course, several other shots didn't. But without the IS I doubt I could've gotten one sharp one second exposure after 100 attempts. In the end I sold it because I wanted more reach. The optical quality was good. The only thing that really annoyed me about the lens was the lack of internal focus.

Having briefly owned one and played with the other in best buy, I can say that the autofocus on the 70-200 is infinitely faster than the 70-300. I don't know about image quality because I didn't really get that in depth with the 70-300. If autofocus speed is a priority then the canon 70-200 variants are very good.

i don't know about autofocus...but you can see here that the image quality is fairly close...i know most will say that the 70-200 'completely and totally blows away' the 70-300...but if you look at the tests done here...i'd say it's pretty close
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/70300s

If IS really isn't an issure then get the f/4, because in every other field it outclasses the 70-300.

Just remember-you can always use a tripod or monopod to work around low shutter speeds, but you can't buy anything that can upgrade the 70-300 to the quality of that L

The only problem I could see is it being too heavy or big
the 70-300 was my first "long" telephoto zoom
when I first got it, I was like "this is gigantic!"
then I rented a 70-200 and was surprised because my arm was getting tired from holding it up so long

thanks. sorry i didn't search it first. going with the 70-200 f.4