WTT: 70-200 F/2.8L for 300 F/4L IS, Pros? Cons?

I am in need of more zoom and I dont have money. I am considering trading my 70-200 f/2.8L for a 300 F/4L IS.

Should I? What are benefit of the 300 over the zoom? focusing speed/accuracy worse or better, how much so? is the IS any good? image quality?

Your input is appreciated. Might as well ask here, anyone interested in making a trade here in Canada?

Cheers

What are you shooting that you need more zoom?

motorsports

The hockey season is over and I have no more need for this lens till fall, by then I will buy this lens to re-add to my lineup.......... I would go for the 100-400 but noone would trade that for my lens with no money on top...............

The 70-200 has served me well, it paid for my tuition and expenses for the next two semesters, but thats the thing I already paid for school and I am stuck with zilch, need for more zoom and a lens that I dont need ATM.

What about getting the teleconverter for your existing lense. Having the 2.8 is a good start.

I am in the U.S. and have a 300 f/4L IS. I am interested in trade. I have used this lens for birds with good success. I think it would be great for motorsports. The AF is very fast and accurate. Image quality is top notch. The only thing I wonder is would you be happy with a prime lens. The focal length is great in most cases, but I wonder if you wouldn't need to zoom out once in a while. Anyway, let me know what you decide.

I would have thought that adding a 1.4x teleconverter to the 70-200 f2.8L would have given the maximum versatility for motorsports. This would give almost 300mm at f4 with the ability to zoom out, plus the lens can still be used without the tc for when you need f2.8 or 70mm.

The 300 f4L IS is probably a better lens for sharpness and it has IS, but you wouldn't have a sharpness problem with your existing lens (even with 1.4x tc) and sometimes you are better off with 90%+ the image quality and much better versatility.

True, I do have a TC. My thinking is has been that I would get considerable more reach with the 300.

70-200mm + TC on a 10D = 448mm
300mm +TC on 10D = 672mm

Chrisnardone, thanks, but I forgot to mention it would have to be in Canada, or I would end up paying $200 in taxes. Ill keep looking, maybe I could rent the 100-400 when I need it. Renting here is really expensive though.

Cheers

PR,.. I can't speek for the Non IS f/2.8 you own...

But the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS actually focuses faster,. and has better tracking tha the 300mm f/4.

Also,. the 300mm f/4's Image Stabilization is first gen... so again, here the 300mm looses out to the IS version of the zoom.

What is 2nd generation IS? I thought it was IS mode 1 and mode 2 which the 300 f/4L IS has. I thought the 1st generation was like the 28-135 IS which only has 1 IS mode.

There are three IS versions out there..

The one the 28-135 has.. (only one mode) and the one that the 300mm f/4L IS and 100-400mmL IS has (two modes available via the switch) ... are both part of the first generation.

First gen goes all screwy (or can go all screwy) wehn it is on and mounted on a tripod or other stable platform.

2nd Gen.. like the big primes have,. and the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS... has a third IS mode that is self activating. It detects the lenses installation on a stable surface like a tripod automatically and drops into mode three which uses the IS to compensate for only the smallest of movements like those created by shutter release and mirror slap.

Canon does not in fact call this "mode three" FYI,. I just use it to explain that there is a third method of IS behavior.

CDS, thanks, they are ther same, I have used the IS version..........

I will just rent a 100-400 for now.

I guess my decision is made on what to do, thanks for the info guys.

Wow, I read up on the 2nd gen IS. Now I really wish I had the money when the 70-200 2.8L IS's were selling like hotcakes on Dell. I guess Canon can't do a 100-400L or 300 f/4L IS "mk II" without prohibitively driving up the price? Too bad. I've never thought to complain about the tracking speed of the 300 f/4 L IS, but there is room for improvement there.

What about the new 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS ? Did Canon put the older IS in it?

Have you ever considered the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 EX? It doesn't have IS, but it is f2.8. You would need to rest it on a monopod though, unless you have very strong arms.

Weight isnt really an issue, but the problem is that the Sigma is even more expensive then the 100-400.......... I have never really cared about IS, I would much rather have a faster lens. But $2400 is just far too much IMO.

ChrisNardone, I think the 75-300 DO IS lens has the new IS system in it...... anyone here know for sure if I'm right about that?