70-200 f4L non-IS or 70-300 f4-5.6 IS

So I'm trying to decide on which lens to go with between the two above. I'm also open tp suggestions.

I'm looking for a lens to shoot basketball with as well as my friends surfing. Plus I'm also looking for a telephoto for when I go hiking. I'm looking for good IQ and quick AF. This will be mounted on my 60D, and my budget is around $600. Thanks on advance for the help.

Since you're after quick AF, I'd suggest the 70-200. I've owned the 70-300 in the past, and its focusing is fairly slow (it's not "true" USM). There's a significant difference between it and the 70-200 range, in terms of focusing speed (although not necessarily IQ). The disadvantage of the 70-200 is that it has no IS. This may not be an issue with moving subjects (unless you're panning, in which case it's very useful), although it does affect the versatility of the lens. If AF speed is more important to you than versatility, then go with the 70-200. If not, you may want to consider the 70-300.

Basketball as in indoors in a gym? Shooting in a dim gym with the 70-300 IS would be very difficult, to say the least. With a high ISO it would be doable with the 70-200 F4, really something like 85mm 1.8 would be ideal for indoor sports on a budget. Either would be adequate for surfing or hiking, although I would still give the edge for AF, IQ, and of course build quality to the 70-200, and with a 1.4x TC down the road you can get some extra reach out of it as well.

I have to agree with ceegee. If quicker AF is a priority, then the 70-200 is the one (as long as there is good light). For basketball the 70-200 should have sufficient reach. For surfing, birds, wildlife, etc however, the reach of the 70-300 may be more up your ally. Both are good lenses and having IS or lack of IS makes a difference for some. With your budget, the 70-300 new should be cheaper than the 70-200mm used, if that matters to you. It's another one of those cases where it boils down to what you shoot the most and what is more important to you. In the end, either will do the job in one situation and in another situation, the one you don't have is the one you need Sorry, but that's the way it is.

That's seems to be one of the main drawbacks from the 70-300 compared to the 70-200, the AF speed which is one of my main concerns.

Likewise, the 85 1.8 has been suggested to me but it doesn't fit the need for surfing and hiking as much.
I've tested a couple other lens in the gym(s) I'm planning to shoot in (no actual action shots) and I got good to decent lighting at ISO 1600 and f4 with a ss of 250(to 320, I believe).

CJCMarquez wrote in post #15154138
Likewise, the 85 1.8 has been suggested to me but it doesn't fit the need for surfing and hiking as much.
I've tested a couple other lens in the gym(s) I'm planning to shoot in (no actual action shots) and I got good to decent lighting at ISO 1600 and f4 with a ss of 250(to 320, I believe).

But you are going to need at least 1/500th to consistently stop action during an actual game.

Even though the focus speed is less than desireable I think you would be better off with the 50 1.8 you have, stopped down to F2 or 2.8, and getting the additional shutter speed you need, than trying to shoot 1/250th at F4.

I mean it really depends on your priorities. If your priorities are outdoors and indoors sports is just an afterthought, make do with the 50 1.8 or try with the 70-200.

If indoors sports is your number one priority (you listed it first anyway), you need something with at least a F2.8 starting aperture. There was a 80-200 2.8 L "Magic Drainpipe" for sale today: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1240313 for under $700. I have never owned one but my understanding is the AF is noisy but pretty fast. If that is out of your budget you could sell the 50mm 1.8, buy the 85mm 1.8 for indoors sports, and the EF-S 55-250mm for your outdoors activities. Should be able to accomplish all that for the price of the 70-200 F4 or less.

Alright. There's a preseason game this Wednesday. I'll try out the 50 and see where to go from there. Thanks ceegee and Billginthekeys for the advice. It really helps to hear these things and just talk/think it through.

I had the 70-300 and as someone suggested, the Af is slow. Nowhere near as fast as the L glass. At the long end it is softer as has been said for some time. Given the two choices, I'd pick the 70-200.

(I recently sold my 70-300 after getting a used 70-200 IS)

get a 55-250IS for telephoto, and an 85mm f1.8 for indoor gym shots...

the other two lenses aren't going to work for you indoors...and the 55-250IS is pretty much 99% of the lens that the 70-300IS is, but a whole lot cheaper