Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM (non L) or Canon 70-200 f4L for aviation shots?

So I've across a $375 deal on a Canon 70-300 IS USM. I really want a telephoto zoom to round out my kit that I can use for aviation shots as well as some sports. I've been set on the 70-200 f/4 but just waiting for the right time $$$-wise to pull the trigger.

My question is which lens would be a better option in your mind, the 70-300 or the 70-200L and why?

Hello.
I shot for a few years with the 70-300 non-IS lens. It was a good zoom for aircraft, especially the smaller ones. I guess it depends how far away you'll be and what you'll be shooting. I now have a 70-200 f/4 IS lens, which is great for quality, but sometimes I end up having a crop a fair amount with the smaller planes. The addition of the IS is useful for panning shots during takeoff/landing, and for the low light shots of stationary aircraft. I'd miss not having that.

Daniel

The extra 100mm of the 70-300mm is what's peaked my interest in it. I use to shot with a 55-250mm, before I sold it with my Rebel, and I was happy withthe focal length frm where I was standing. If I'm ever shooting low light stationary aircraft I'll have a tripod so I don't think IS is that big an issue, hence why I was looking at 70-200 f/4L non-IS version.

rivas8409 wrote in post #15540271
So I've across a $375 deal on a Canon 70-300 IS USM. I really want a telephoto zoom to round out my kit that I can use for aviation shots as well as some sports. I've been set on the 70-200 f/4 but just waiting for the right time $$$-wise to pull the trigger.

My question is which lens would be a better option in your mind, the 70-300 or the 70-200L and why?

Here's what happens when a Canon 70-300mm image stabilizer lens is used to take pictures of moving subjects.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE