JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5920 times:
I used to own a 75-300 USM mk. III and it was a great lens for the money - though as Ivan says it was very soft and the colours very muddy above about 220mm. I believe the IS version is of a little better quality and, obviously, has the benefits of IS. Myself I don't need IS because I refuse to shoot in crappy conditions, so my 70-200 F4 L does me just fine. I agree totally with Ivan - spend the extra and get the 70-200 F4 L. OK, you lose 100mm (never been that big an issue for me) and IS but the quality of image this lens delivers is second to none. You are getting a much better lens for your money; and besides, there are other ways of improving your images in low light rather than using IS.
Dan330 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 439 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5718 times:
I bought the 70-300mm IS a few years ago, while a friend had the 70-200mm f4 non-IS. Given the choice again I would definately side with the 70-200mm f4. OK no IS, but its an L lens and the quality over the 70-300mm IS is massive.
Its also compatable with the 1.4x converter if you want the extra reach, full autofocus and excellent quality still.
As for the 100-400mm, that the one I use now and wouldn't change it for anything!