70-200 F4 Question

I just have a few questions on the 70-200 F4L (non IS) lens:
1 (the obvious): Is the IQ a noticeable improvement over the EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM?
and
2: Does the lack of dust-resistance cause recurring problems?
Thanks for any and all input.

I'm going to go with:
Yes (assuming IS isn't essential), and
No.

The IQ of the 70-200mm non-IS makes the 70-300mm look like a kit lens. They also work very well with several 1.4x TCs making it a 98-280mm lens.

No Dust with mine.

K6AZ wrote in post #11347402
The IQ of the 70-200mm non-IS makes the 70-300mm look like a kit lens. .

I've seen many reviews counter to this claim...

Ok, very reassuring to hear that the dust is not a problem.
Some say the IQ blows the 70-300 away, others say the two are very comparable...What's the majority opinion?

For me, no contest. The 70-200 was a much better lens. I had upgraded from the 70-300 and it is that much beter.

tkbslc wrote in post #11347561
I've seen many reviews counter to this claim...

This isn't a claim. It is hands on experience with both.

K6AZ wrote in post #11348635
This isn't a claim. It is hands on experience with both.

And what do you think reviews are?

tkbslc wrote in post #11348717
And what do you think reviews are?

A lot of them are skewed. I've shot and owned both side by side. Have you? Or are you basing your opinion on review sites?

I have shot with both lenses and, while I don't think the "L" lens actually blows the non-L away, I do consider it a significantly better lens.

The constant f/4 aperture at 200mm beats the heck out of an f/5.6...

The front element of the "L" lens doesn't rotate which facilitates the use of a CPL filter...

The "L" lens is built like a tank. I fell with the lens hood of the 70-200mm lens hitting the cement propelled by my 200+ pounds of beef. The hood was toast but the lens escaped without any harm. Peraps this could also happen with the 70-300mm but, I really doubt it. BTW - if anyone wants to duplicate this accident, please let me know the results of the experiment.

That said, I far prefer the (more expensive) IS model of the 70-200mm f/4L lens to either the 70-300mm or the non-IS 70-200mm... I had the non-IS model and I use the non-IS 4-5x more often because of my ability to hand hold this lens.

Non IS 70-300 was replaced with the non IS 70-200 f/4 L and I couldn't be happier. Considerably better lens all around.

RPCrowe wrote in post #11349430
I have shot with both lenses and, while I don't think the "L" lens actually blows the non-L away, I do consider it a significantly better lens.

The constant f/4 aperture at 200mm beats the heck out of an f/5.6...

The front element of the "L" lens doesn't rotate which facilitates the use of a CPL filter...

The "L" lens is built like a tank. I fell with the lens hood of the 70-200mm lens hitting the cement propelled by my 200+ pounds of beef. The hood was toast but the lens escaped without any harm. Peraps this could also happen with the 70-300mm but, I really doubt it. BTW - if anyone wants to duplicate this accident, please let me know the results of the experiment.

That said, I far prefer the (more expensive) IS model of the 70-200mm f/4L lens to either the 70-300mm or the non-IS 70-200mm... I had the non-IS model and I use the non-IS 4-5x more often because of my ability to hand hold this lens.

I'll add a couple of things to your observations. I found the 70-300 to be a little soft beyond 200mm and the AF would hunt in lower light especially when I would try to get a bird in a tree when it would be cloudy. It's not a horrible lens like the 75-300 but I would rate it along the lines of a good kit lens.

As far as the IS/non IS versions of the 70-200, I now own the IS version. I would have held on to the non-IS if I hadn't picked up the IS in a package deal. As far as I can tell the difference is in the IS which comes in very handy such as the bird in the tree situation when it's overcast.

Thank you everybody for the input.
I've been wanting to upgrade my 70-300 for a while; I've been slowly replacing my non-L lenses that I purchased when I first got into digital photography with L lenses. First I replaced my kit EF-S 18-55 with the 17-40 F4L and I couldn't be happier with that upgrade. But since I mostly shoot sports, I wanted to buy a top-quality telephoto lens to replace my 70-300. I've been more than happy with a lot of the images that I've been able to capture with that lens, as I brought it to high school soccer, softball, baseball and lacrosse games, as well as cross country and track meets. As long as the light was bright, the AF had no problem focusing quickly and I was able to get the shutter speed up high enough even with the aperture limited to f5.6 at the tele end. However, as my photographic eye developed with time, and I got pickier and pickier, I, too, noticed that the images were slightly soft at the 200+mm range. For this reason, along with the variable aperture (and partially the lack of a red ring), I felt it was necessary to replace this lens next.
After doing some extensive research, reading handfuls of reviews on various websites, and some opinions from local photographers, I ordered the lens this morning, and it should be here early next week. Thanks for all the input!

cokethenwpepsi wrote in post #11349558
Thank you everybody for the input.
I've been wanting to upgrade my 70-300 for a while; I've been slowly replacing my non-L lenses that I purchased when I first got into digital photography with L lenses. First I replaced my kit EF-S 18-55 with the 17-40 F4L and I couldn't be happier with that upgrade. But since I mostly shoot sports, I wanted to buy a top-quality telephoto lens to replace my 70-300. I've been more than happy with a lot of the images that I've been able to capture with that lens, as I brought it to high school soccer, softball, baseball and lacrosse games, as well as cross country and track meets. As long as the light was bright, the AF had no problem focusing quickly and I was able to get the shutter speed up high enough even with the aperture limited to f5.6 at the tele end. However, as my photographic eye developed with time, and I got pickier and pickier, I, too, noticed that the images were slightly soft at the 200+mm range. For this reason, along with the variable aperture (and partially the lack of a red ring), I felt it was necessary to replace this lens next.
After doing some extensive research, reading handfuls of reviews on various websites, and some opinions from local photographers, I ordered the lens this morning, and it should be here early next week. Thanks for all the input!

I think you will be happy with it. Also you may want to consider a 1.4x TC. If you don't like the price of the Canon version there are several third party versions that work very well. I have a Tamron 1.4x TC I picked up on eBay for $84 and I have a hard time telling the difference between it and the Canon TC.