A few weeks ago I purchased a Canon 60d and had asked for lens help on this forum. I decided to return the camera and buy the canon 6d, which I really like. I need some help deciding on a telephoto lens. It's not often that I shoot on the Long end, But there are times when I would like to have it, i.e. kids soccer game, zoo etc... Am I better off buying the 70-200 f4 usm or the 70-300 usm is. The question that keeps coming up in my head is will 200mm be long enough. I'm sort of on a budget for this lens choice, so that why I decided on these two. Your thoughts, suggestions?
My current lens line up is 17-40, 24-105 and 40 2.8
Also, is the canon 100 macro L that much better than the non 100 macro non L some shots will be on a tripod indoors and some handheld outdoors.
Perhaps I was lucky and bought an above-average 70-300 IS, but mine was almost as sharp as the L version I replaced it with. I've not used the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/4, but one consideration when comparing it with the 70-300 IS is that the IS may more than make up for loss of sharpness on the f/4 caused by lens movement (especially when you need slower shutter speeds, unless you plan to use a tripod); so that even though in studio conditions the f/4 is sharper, outdoors and off-tripod there may be little or no practical difference. If you have a very steady hand, consider the 200L f/2.8 prime as well.
Also, consider stretching your budget by buying second-hand. You can buy the marvelous 70-200 f/4 IS second-hand for well under $1000 (I've seen some not much more than $700), the 100-400L and 70-300L for c. $1,000, and, for even more reach, the Sigma 50-500 OS for c. $800-$900.
As for the 100L vs non-L macros, the 100L makes an excellent all-purpose lens if you like that focal length. I'm sure the non-L does too, but I like the extra "insurance" IS provides when, as is almost always the case with me, my use is hand-held and non-macro, sometimes in very low light.