Canon 70-300mm IS

[GeneS]

New to the diital world (previous Elan user) and purchased a Canon 40D. Also purchased an array of lenses, 10-22, 50, 17-70 and 28-135. Looking for a telephoto lens. Debating the 70-300 IS USM 4.0 or the 70-200 2.8. Realize a large price difference and possibly giving up some low light capability with the 4.0, but like the extra reach of the 300mm.
Any users that have tried both or have advise at my level if the 70-300 would be more than adequate. Desire the IS feature.

Thank you

[Bob Atkins]

First note the EF 70-300/4-5.6IS is f4 at 70mm, but f5.6 at 300mm.  That being said, I own one and find it a very useful lens. Though f5.6 is slow, the IS somewhat makes up for that. It's small, light, sharp and relatively inexpensive. I reviewed the 70-300IS here - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html

The 70-200/2.8 is significantly larger, heavier and more conspicuous (being white). It's an excellent lens and the f2.8 at 200mm might be useful for action work. I reviewed the IS version here - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_ef_70-200_f28L_IS.html

If you really want IS, then the choice is $500+ for the 70-300 IS or $1500+ for the 70-200/2.8L IS. I suspect that you'll be happy with the 70-300IS. I know that I'm pretty happy with mine.

[GeneS]

Thank you for the advise and I thoroughly enjoy the site wihich has a wealth of information.
Appears the 70-300 will be the lens of choice. Thanks again for the response.

[bmpress]

I owned the 70-300 and really liked it, however I gave it to my son and bought a 100-400L because most of my shooting is of birds, and they are small and hard to approach.

So...what will you be doing? If its for birds, than the 70-300 is "s--t for the birds." But if not, then go for the 70-300.