Would you do it?

I have an unexpected opportunity to buy a 70-200 F/4L (non-IS) for about the same price that I could get for my 70-300 IS. I use this lens mostly for outdoor sports photography (dog sports) and portraits. I've read all the related threads on this forum, but am still hesitating because I like the IS on my 70-300, although I don't really need the extra reach; 200 is plenty long enough for dog sports. So my question is: would you buy the 70-200 and sell the 70-300, or is the potential gain in quality so marginal as to be not worth the effort? I can't afford the IS version of the 70-200.

"I" would....And I wouldn't hesitate as long as the 300 length will not be missed.

I wouldn't because I like having IS. But if you use it outdoors in actual sunlight, then you probably wouldn't need the IS. Of those two, I would choose the 70-300 regardless.

yeah, if you shoot outdoors mostly then I'd do it. If you are shooting indoors without flash a lot or later in the evening, i might want the IS.

Get the 70-200 4L

Dogs tend not to be stationary subjects. IS doesn't help you freeze the action. You don't need the extra reach and I think you will enjoy the better build of the L lens.

I would never trade my 70-200 4L for a 70-300 IS. Here are some other advantages:

1) True "Ring Type" USM which provides full time manual focus.
2) Non rotating front element.
3) Internal focusing (lens length always stays the same)
4) Constant f4 aperture
5) Compatible with a 1.4 teleconverter
6) Focus distance scale

Personally I would chose the 70-200 over the 70-300, I had two copies of the 70-200 f/4 and both were excellent.

no brainer...go get the 'L' lens.

Since you like the IS on your 70-300, I would keep it. It's also lighter and longer.

I have the 70-300, the 70-200 f/4, and the 70-200 f/4 IS. I haven't decided which to keep or sell, as I really like all three.

Thanks for the input, guys. After much thought I decided to keep my 70-300, mainly because of the IS. I like having the camera around my neck rather than on a tripod, so the IS has often been useful, and the 70-300 is fine for outdoor dog sports; it's given me some nice action shots. If I could afford the IS version of the 70-200, I'd probably swap without too much hesitation, but I can't justify spending more money right now. Maybe next year ...! And then, of course, I went into the garden the other day and snapped this - which wouldn't have been possible without the extra reach of the 70-300 ...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.