Canon 70-200 vs 70-300

[andrewdt]

I had an old (1st gen) 70-200 2.8 IS that I have had to part with for numerous reasons. I cannot justify another of the same cost wise at my requirements right now. I am looking at the 70-200 f4 L (non IS) and the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM. I have handled the 70-300 a little and am completely annoyed at the extending barrel and rotating front during focus as I have been spoilt. However, I have also been spoilt by the IS that I had on the old lens, so I am struggling to make the choice between the two for the same price.

I do not specialize in anything particular, but I find myself shooting a lot of the kids (young) outdoors in fairly ok-good light at play and on the sports field, enjoy shooting the moon and some landscapes at highish focal lengths. I shoot handheld about 90% of the time. I have read all the reviews but I think I am mostly looking for somebody to comment who has used both of these lenses and advise me on the following -

1) would you be happy to shoot at 200mm and crop, or have the extra 100mm and shoot at 300mm on the 70-300?
2) does the IS on the 70-300 give as much as is claimed by canon (3 full stops)?
3) does the IQ differ that much between the two lenses? I keep reading about how the 70-300 is a "hidden" L lens IQ wise.
4) if you were buying again and you were thinking about a general purpose tele zoom with great IQ, which would you choose this time?

Thanks all

[OsmosisStudios]

I'd say the 70-200 f/4, and maybe see if I could switch to an IS.

[Elmo]

From a person with both a 70-200 f:2.8 and the 70-300 I find myself using the 2.8 only when in need the lens speed. for everything else it is the 70-300 as it is much lighter. The rotating extending barrel is not an issue with me. Using a CPL is the only place it makes a difference in that the CPL needs to be set after composing ( which really is a good thing). I know it is not white and has no red glory ring (does not look as professional) but it works for me.

[RichardTaylor]

I own a 70-200 F4 L and the 70-300 F4.5-F5.6 IS.

The 70-300 gets used a lot more than the 70-200 mainly because of the extra reach.
It is not a "hidden" L IQ wise = especially wide open, or with super quick focussing like the 70-200- F4 L.
The 70-300 IQ meets my needs for web publishing and prints up to A4 (~10x8)

I havn't done any serious testing on the IS however it is my travel tele, if not specifically going to shoot wildlife. (I also own a Canon 100-400)

If you don't need the reach I would go for the 70-200.

You may find this thread, on the 70-300, of interest.

Soft pics with 70-300, please help

[andrewdt]

Thanks for the input. I have gone with the 70-200 F4 non-IS. I think the key here was to simply look back at how people view L lenses, and there seems to be no misconceptions - L is quality. Full stop. So I must just make it work for me and lose the IS but I somehow think it will work out just dandy...