70-300 with is or the 70-200 f/4 L???

I am looking for some input on these two lenses. I want a zoom but and would love 300 with is but an L lens same price, but with 100mm less length Is the L lens qaulity worth giving up the length and is??? Dont know alot about either. oppinions would be great about now. Thank You Ben

In my honest opinion, I would go for the 70-300 IS. For me it was an easy choice, I dont like to draw attention to myself, and the white L lens would do just that. I had rented both lenses to use side by side, and I found I wanted the extra 100mm. The images from both lenses looked extremely good, and I found myself not being able to tell the difference. The L lens is a constant aperture, but I still wanted the extra 100mm's. Either way I dont think you can lose...

The 70-200 f/4L is an excellent Lens and so is the new 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. Some claim it as being comparable to an L class zoom. Its really just a matter as to what your intended use plans to be.

I was hoping you would say that. I want that extra reach. So everyone seems to be happy with this lens?? Im going to use this and my new 17-40 for my walk arounds.

Is the new 70-300mm IS more expensive than the 70-200mm f4? If prices are comparable, I'd rather choose 70-200mm f4 for its better handling, constant aperture and constant length. Is the extra 100mm important to you? If yes, Sigma 100-300mm f4 can be a good alternative to think of.

The build between the 2 is quite different. The 70-300 is way too plasticky for my liking. The 70-200 is sharp and the colours and contrast
are amazing. The "L" series lense will hold it's value better also. The 70-300 is a nice lense but my choice would be the 70-200.

Just my 2 cents.
Dan

the 70-300 SUCKS... even the NEW one with Stage 2 IS blows,... at 300mm its STILL soft... I bought two of the old ones, thinking one was a bad copy... It wasnt, its just normaly soft... Slow AF, and the new one didnt have MUCH improvement... 70-200 f/4 all the way to the bank...

70-200 optics are fantastic. Better resale too, not that ur gona want to sell it. IF you REALLY wanted 300mm.. Id just get a 300mm f/4 IS PRIME

Old ones?
Are you judging the new 70-300IS by how the older 75-300IS performed?It's not really clear how you say it.

I have no experience with the 70-200, but I got the new 70-300 IS for my g/f for Christmas (and one for myself).
I'm VERY pleased so far with the results. I also have the 300f/4 L IS, which is a great lens and the one I'd normally use. But sometimes I want the versatility of a light zoom, and this new 70-300IS is a keeper.
Jack

If you want 300 focal length, I'd say Sigma's 100-400 f/4. Good value for that focal length. Good value too.

I think you've been sharing my dream of a good value Sigma 100-400 f4 Mr Grego

Of course, the 100-300mm f4 becomes a good value 160-420 with a 1.4x TCon, but not really a walkaround jobbie unlike the new Canon IS.

OP ... see here for discussion and review link:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=124224

condyk wrote:
I think you've been sharing my dream of a good value Sigma 100-400 f4 Mr Grego

Of course, the 100-300mm f4 becomes a good value 160-420 with a 1.4x TCon, but not really a walkaround jobbie unlike the new Canon IS.

Well, I wish I cold go for that, but I'm heading more towards the 120-300 2.8 by Sigma.

It's a good value relatively speaking.

Best price you'll get for a 300 2.8, and then a zoom to boot.

I konw 2x tc are not good for a lot of use, but still that thing on the 120-300. 600 + the 1.6 crop field of view. Defintely can spy on those ducks in their homes sleeping.