I am really torn on which to choose

I have been looking at the EF 70-200 F4L lens vs. the 70-300 f/4-5.6 US ISM lens. The reviews online show that this is a typical comparison and then say it just depends on what you want. To me, I was leaning more towards the 70-200 f/4 (NON IS) because I could always get an extender - then I would most likely want to have the IS. The cheap in me says just get the 70-300 because I am an amateur and that will be plenty enough lens for me.

Any thoughts? Anybody go through the same decision process?

If i were you, i would take the 70-200 ( White power )...and if you need more reach you can buy the TC 1.4 later on...but for me i seetled on the f4 IS and now wanting to go F2.8 IS...

Do you see significant limitations on the lens being f4 vs the 2.8? There is a hugh price difference and my photography doesn't warrant that expenditure yet. Thanks for the reply.

70-200mm f/4 IS will be my pick. It is one of the sharpest zoom canon ever made. The IS version has redesign optics, it is not just a IS add on from the non IS version. If you need the extra reach, use the 1.4 extender.

The 2.8 IS is for sure nicer, but yo have to consider the extra size and weight, and I really mean EXTRA.

Consider the Tamron 70-300mm USD VC? Very good lens. I prefer it over the Canon 70-300mm is.

honestly, I have the 70-300 and it's a great lens for the price. Get one used and try it out. If you find it's not fast enough for you, sell it and try the f/4. I will say that setting it on 200 and then zooming to 300 doesn't do all that much visually, in my opinion. So it's really the speed and bokeh that you want, that is the question. Also, the IS helps a lot.

I currently own both - I bought the 70-300 a couple years ago as my first telephoto lens as I primarily shot sports, and the photos I got with it were consistently sharp. The stabilizing ability of it is very handy. The primary reason I recently bought the 70-200L was for the constant f/4, as it's an entire extra stop at the long end of the zoom. I was very happy with both lenses and whichever you choose I can guarantee you'll be happy with it.

cokethenwpepsi: do you wish you had the IS on the 70-200L?

Almondsaz wrote in post #12693906
cokethenwpepsi: do you wish you had the IS on the 70-200L?

I never got what I consider the fullest use from my non-IS 70-200mm f/4L. I use my IS version 4-5x more often because I am no longer a slave to bright light when hand holding.

I have carried my f/4L IS lens all over the world along with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a pair of 1.6x bodies.

The f4L IS lens is, IMO more versatile than the non IS lens because I can hand hold in lower light levels as when I shot these Tang Dynasty Dancers in Xi'an, China...

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …d9MD#865279259_​vydns-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …d9MD#865510964_​dboRA-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …d9MD#865510491_​kFgmJ-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …d9MD#865511209_​25Fh5-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …d9MD#865266437_​enx8z-A-LB

Beautiful photographs RPCrowe. The IS version of the f4L is just a bit out of my comfort zone for expense at this time/matched with my skill (or lack there of). I really like the crispness of the photographs. Thank you for sharing them.

I saw the Terra cotta Warriors in DC when they came on exhibit, nothing like seeing them in person I am sure. I bet that was incredible.

I looked at the same lenses recently and felt IS was very important. I looked at the posted shots here as well as the reviews and decided the Tamron 70-300 VC was the best choice fro me. At about $400 it gives you great range, IQ, IS, and is reasonably sized.

I think the Tamron 70-300 is the best compromise. Actually has the best IQ up to the 100mm mark, and has the canon 70-300 beat basically all around. VC is a bit better than the Canon's IS. Relatively inexpensive as well.

Almondsaz wrote in post #12694333
The IS version of the f4L is just a bit out of my comfort zone for expense at this time/matched with my skill (or lack there of).

If you feel like this, don't get the IS version, you will have buyers remorse.

I got the IS version at first, and I felt exactly that way, and I also felt that the changes they made to the lens from the non-IS version weren't really worth twice to price, so I returned it and now I've got the non-IS (I may be the only person on these forums who has gone from the f4 IS to the f4 non-IS, everyone else seems to go the other way).

FWIW, I have not noticed much of a decrease in IQ at all going from the IS to the non IS.

Sirrith: thank you for your helpful response. There is a lot to consider. I don't want to buy twice, so I am trying to take my time. David

I wouldn't want to have a lens without some sort of stabilization once you get to 200mm...i went for the 70-300IS...but if i were buying now i'd look at either the new tamron which addresses a lot of the 70-300IS's shortcomings(non rotating front element, faster focus..) or possibly the 55-250IS to save some more money...in my experience the 55-250IS, and 70-300IS are pretty much dead even in image quality...