#3621 – it's only a $50 difference

70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS, $579.99? or 70-200mm f/4.0 L, $629.99?

the 70-300mm has the image stabilization technology and an extra 100mm of zoom, but the 70-200mm has the L series glass and is much sharper. hm. and i can’t find a good argument either way… basically i want something that’ll be good for shooting sports and other various things at distance, but some people say that with the f/4.0 aperture on these they aren’t fast enough for sport-photography and that the f/2.8 is much better (except it’s expensive as heck :P).

but i can’t make up my mind which to get… i think i’m leaning towards the 70-200mm f/4.0 L, though. especially after this:

Not much that I can add over what others have said. This entry level L lens makes all of your other old non-L glass look and feel cheap. The pictures from this are great and the colors are spectacular. Since I am new to the hobby, I have only had the use of a few other lenses, but this is by far the #2 value in the Canon lens lineup (#1 being the 50 1.8 mkII). Addictive to shoot, and dangerous to the pocket book because more L glass will most definately be in the future once you start. This feels like a Hi-Fi home audio slippery slope all over again!

(that’s the same lens as i bought previously)

and this:

What can I say that hasn´t allready been said?… well not mutch!!

I was devided between this lens and the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM and am realy gglad I went with this one!!!

Ok so the 70-300 has IS and a longer zoom range… big deal! IS is allways nice to have but the extra 100mm don’t bother me at all with the image quality I get out of the L lens I can crop down without loss of quality and compensate this diference easely!

The 70-300 built quality is nower near the L lens, same as the optic quality (despite some creatics one the net saying that their same or that the 70-300 is better… it is all BS, at least with the ones I tested!).

i’ve seen people saying how they use this lens for a ton of things, and it’s fantastic “as long as you’re not in poor lighting conditions”. i guess what i’m wondering is if baseball stadium lighting = poor lighting conditions (though i doubt it).

the problem now is that i want a full-frame sensor camera (though a 35mm film camera wouldn’t be bad, i’d just be scanning in the pictures anyway so might as well be digital; maybe sometime i’ll get a 35mm film body to i can still use these lenses on the rare chance i want to shoot film). i think i’m starting to drool over the canon 5d now… OR AM I???

also, guess who is going to a seminar by a pulitzer-prize winning photographer? me, that’s who!