Canon 70-200 f4L V Canon 70-300 is

[scottduffy]

Would the L lens have better optical quality than the 70-300 or are they similar? I was just thinking that if there is not too much difference then the extra reach would be nice.

[beermonster65]

have seen these two come up in conversation before, and it would seem 70% say the 70-200 f4 is much sharper and a superior lens to the 70-300 is, but having said that general opinions is that the 70-300 is a good lens, i've just purchased a 70-200 f4 to replace a Sigma 70-300 and its streets apart, absolutely love the speed and sharpness of it, but I do miss the reach of the 300.

[chris321]

This (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=147473) thread should help you out!

Chris

[scottduffy]

Cheers guys.

[condyk]

Owned both and not a huge difference in IQ. The L is a tad better and much better build. I sold the 70-300 because I didn't think it had the build to stand up to heavy use in dusty environments when I was on the road. If you expect regular use then it's a good buy.

[HoppyUK]

70-200L 4 is better optically, but there's really not much in it. 70-300 IS is very good, plus it has IS.

The benefit of the L lens is as much in the more rugged build, and the fact that it doesn't extend when zooming, though the 70-300 IS seems very nicely made. The IS 4 L is also weather sealed.