Handling
Build
Optical Quality
Focusing speed
Constant Aperture
Teleconverter compatability

What? At this price? Are you joking?

I have become very interested in the feature I call "Lens handling". This is an idea I have about how easy the lens is to use, day-in, day-out. For example, my old Sigma 70-300 exhibited poor handling, because the front element rotated, and the lens changed length as it was focusing. The Canon 100-400L IS has poor handling because all of the weight is at the front of the lens, putting a big strain on the arms, making it difficult to use for long lengths of time, despite it being a very similar outright weight to my 300F4L IS. The 300 handles well because the weight is more toward the camera, and is comfortable to use for longer periods. The 70-200 handles well because there is no change in the length of the lens as it is either zoomed or focused. The weight distribution is excellent, and it never feels too heavy.

Many have commented on the 67mm filter size. This could not worry me less. I have the only other canon lens to use this filter size (the 24-85), and both have one filter that lives on them permanently to keep them protected from scratches etc. I do not use "creative" filters (what is the point? I could paint it if I wanted to mess around with what was there), nor anything other than my standard protective filters (A Skylight on the 24-85, a UV on the 70-200, and a Protect on the 300).

Handles very nicely with the teleconverter. Should be considered SERIOUS competition to the old 100-300f5.6L in this mode, as well as to many other good quality 100-300s. USM gives it a real edge though.

For my uses, makes the f2.8 version unnecessary. I don't miss the extra stop, I certainly don't miss the extra weight, and I really don't miss the extra dent in my wallet.

Has this lens ANY competition? For me, no. I don't want to carry an F2.8 (and I've had enough of Sigma etc....once you have L series, there's no going back), I wanted compatibility with my Canon TC, and I wanted something I could reasonably afford, and also something that might match my 300 F4L for it's optical quality.

As close to perfect as one could hope for.

Other similar lenses mentioned:
Canon 80-200 USM: good starter lens, too basic though.
Sigma 70-300 APO: Good quality, both optically and build wise, poor handling and design though.
Canon 100-300 USM: Good optically, well built for a consumer zoom, fast and handles well. Not L series though.
Canon 100-400 IS: Excellent optically, great build, poor handling (I don't like push zooms generally either)
Cosina 100-400: Cheap way in to 400mm. Appaling handling, optically, focusing, design, build, etc...
Canon 70-200 f2.8L: Too heavy. Excellent quality, and good handling, but just too heavy and expensive (comparatively).

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

Canon 80-200 F4-5.6 USM (the cheap one)
Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 APO Macro
Canon 100-300 F4-5.6 USM
Canon 100-400 F4-5.6 L IS USM
Cosina 100-400 F4-6.7
Canon 70-200 F2.8L

Other parts owned:
Canon EF 24-85 F3.5-4.5
Canon EF 300 F4L IS
Canon 1.4X TC
Canon EOS 5

> AMAZINGLY SHARP
> L Lens Quality
> Light weight
> Not too expensive

> f4, but for this price - none.

Amazing lens. I have bought this lens over the f2.8 just because of the size and weight (of course also because of the price, but the size made it no question anyway). I take a lot of photos outside and travel a lot, and don't like to carry such a huge lens like the 70-200/f2.8L so this is a great compensation.
I didn't find f2.8 optically optically superiour. This is my baby now.

Similar Products Used:

None

Lens quality
Build
AF speed
Handling

None

It has been over a year since my last posting. Now that I have used this lens on over 100 rolls, I thought there would be some weaknesses/strength that I did not know about when I first got it. But you know what, the more I use this lens, the more I appreciate its usefullness. It is the sharpest lens in my bag, even better than the 28-70L at 70mm. It's build quality is so high, that it makes the 28-70L cheesy by comparison. No extending length as you zoom, uniform tension in the zoom and focus rings, excellent balance with my 1V and lightning fast AF. What more can I ask for. Canon has announced a new 70-200L 2.8IS, but you will not see me in line drooling over this lens. I am extremely happy with the 4L and would not be trading it in. If I want speed, I will get a 85 or 100 prime. This is truly deserving of the L label, and I would definitely recommend it to anyone that wants something in this range.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

75-300 IS

Excellent optics
Excellent build
Light Weight

For me none.

I bought this zoom because I wanted a sharp zoom without the weight of the 2.8 version. So far I am a happy camper : I toured the national parks this summer and the slides I made are very good both in terms of color rendition and sharpness. I am not afraid to shoot wide open as I was with my previous lens.
As an other reviewer said, this is a very good lens to compress landscape shots but 200mm are too short to shoot wildlife. Unless you are shooting VERY large animals.

Customer Service

Not tried

Similar Products Used:

Pentax FA 100-300 (no comparison)

Quality, Size, Weight,Hood

Zoom ring (not so smooth, seems like it can use some lubrication)

Bottom line is this lens is the best of canon's telephoto zoom range i've used in t he past 15 years of my experience, I traded my 70-200L2.8 with this lens to get better contrast and color saturation which the 2.8 lacks compared to the L4, but sharpness and overall performance of the lense is the same, I gave up on a single f stop, and gained contrast, color saturation, hand holdable size and weight and to top it off $500 :)
Buy this lens, Canon knows this is a better lens than the 2.8L, but business is business :)

Similar Products Used:

Canon FD 70-210f4
Canon EF 80-200f2.8
Canon EF 70-200f2.8