Lens for T2i...70-300 f/4-5.6 IS or 70-200 L f/4?

[v1c70r]

V1c70r cannot decide between these two lenses. V1c70r is sure the L is a better build and better lens but he is weary that it doesn't have IS. Should he really be worried about this? V1c70r really can't afford the IS version.

Enough third person...

On the other hand, I hear the 70-300 is a pretty good lens for the price, albeit it tends to go soft when it's close to maxing out.

My current lenses are the 50mm 1.8 and the 18-55 kit lens.

Your thoughts?

 

[analog.universe]

While IS nice, essentially this is a choice between a variable aperture zoom, and a fixed aperture zoom... in that situation, I would 99% of the time go fixed. Do you plan on a shooting a lot of stationary subjects in low light? If so, IS may be worth the trade, but... 5.6 is a tough scene. Besides that, the 70-200 f/4 has a reputation for being a fantastic lens for the money.

 

[chaosrealm93]

it would be helpful to have IS at those ranges, especially since the maximum aperture is only f4 and not 2.8

 

[v1c70r]

Any more thoughts?

My primary use would be for wildlife, followed by high school sports.

 

[KenC]

I've been very happy with the 70-300. The IS is a necessity unless you're always shooting in bright light or with a tripod. As for aperture, remember that the 70-200 doesn't give you focal lengths from 200-300 at any aperture, and in most of the range where they do overlap, the 70-300 is f4-f5 or so. I saw a scale once that showed where it became 5.6 and I think it was past 200 mm. This difference in aperture would only matter if you were shooting fast action (you do mention sports) between maybe 135 mm and 200 mm, where you would lose half a stop to close to a full stop relative to the 70-200.