9 out of 10 points and recommendedsharp, IS, bang for bucksno FTM, build quality, AF speeds
I tested this and the 70-200L before making my purchase the main criteria I used was simply: handheld under fair to low lighting (which is where it’ll be spending most of it’s time). I got mostly blurred results with the L, not surprising. So that pretty much sealed it up for me as to which I got. Considering also the fact that the 70-200L is not vastly superior optically (most reviews floating around will confirm this).reviewed February 11th, 2008
The lens is very sharp throughout it’s entire zoom range. Even at 300 it’s still reasonably decent, especially if you don’t open it up too much.
When comparing the build quality against the L you know which one lags behind. But the extras you get in IS and +100mm at the long end make up for it. The buns might be a little soggy but the beef and the other stuff are still just as good… plus it has some extra beef!
Finally you can't get away from the fact that these puppies start at f4 and go up a little more (on the 70-300). Ask yourself first: where are you going to be using it? If this lens the right tool for the right job then the search is over, highly recommended!