Which one to take? [EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM vs EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM]

The 70-300 seems to be a good lens, it has IS, it goes to 300 and so. But then again, there's 150$ more expensive, the L category lens (70-200). I would use it on a crop body (450d) and I see there are some good photos, then again some bad ones of both lenses.

It's a little bit slow body, so I'm wondering: should I take 70-300, because it has IS? Or 70-200 because well, it's L and it makes such nice bokeh?

I would use it for wildlife and street photography.

Thank you.

200mm isn't going to be long enough for wildlife...i'd go for the 70-300IS...but if you want to save some money look at the tamron 70-300VC

i think for street photography people normally go wider...either way if your looking at a telephoto for that, the black lens will be more discreet than the white lens, and the IS could help out in lower light..

I assume you are comparing the 70-200 f4 non is?

Hands down the 70-200. It is by far a better lens. Far as I'm concerned the 70-300 (non -L) is useless past 200mm. You would get better results just cropping.

DreDaze wrote in post #15057639
200mm isn't going to be long enough for wildlife...i'd go for the 70-300IS...but if you want to save some money look at the tamron 70-300VC

i think for street photography people normally go wider...either way if your looking at a telephoto for that, the black lens will be more discreet than the white lens, and the IS could help out in lower light..

Ok, ok, I see. But I wouldn't go on a safari or something, just birdies and so, maybe some deer if it comes along.

I'm kinda low on my budget, because I'm getting another lens and a flash within this one. But then again, I don't want to take a bad one and have a crappy picture. I'm asking for some sharpness and nice bokeh, and to be a little longer.

bigVinnie wrote in post #15057649
I assume you are comparing the 70-200 f4 non is?

Hands down the 70-200. It is by far a better lens. Far as I'm concerned the 70-300 (non -L) is useless past 200mm. You would get better results just cropping.

For birds? All right, one vote more for non-is lens! Thank you.

for birds you're going to have to do a lot of work to get close if you want 200mm to work...

if you're low on budget there are certainly good options to be had sub $400...

I'm going with that Tamron, thanks man.

bigVinnie wrote in post #15057649
Far as I'm concerned the 70-300 (non -L) is useless past 200mm. You would get better results just cropping.

Have you actually used one? I've seen responses like this quite often concerning this lens and wonder if people are just repeating what others have said.
Here are a few shots taken with the 70-300IS at focal lengths over 200 and I don't consider them "useless".

30D - 1/400s f/5.6 at 300.0mm iso640

Content warning: script

I did have one, didn't like it. The 70-200 is a little bit more money but a significant improvement. To me the 70-300 just lacks that edge detail and leaves things a bit muddy. I had that lens on an XSi, just like the OP's 450d. I was not at all happy with that combination.

Frankly, with the budget presented and what is being shot I would lean more towards picking up a used 200 f/2.8 prime. Not sure about the street shooting part, but you don't generally get close enough to wildlife to need a shorter lens.