Why would you get this lens?

[Kevmeister!]

let's assume you have non of these or any equivalent lenses. He will give you one, but only if you give him the reason why, which one would you choose?

(Sorry got a little bored trying to make this question interesting , basically which one would you choose if you would not look at the price and not asking me what I shoot the most, just tell which one would be more handy in what situation) 

[Ewinter]

70-200. Fast, accurate, razor sharp and enables the super sensitive 2.8 dual cross types to be used on any high end body. Also, lovely bokeh

[Rockets95]

I'll take the 70-200 f/2.8 II, then I can get to 280mm or 400mm with Canon extenders. You can't do that with the 70-300mm.

[Menace]

70-200 2.8 II

Fortunately I already have this lens - its fast AF, larger constant aperture and amazing IQ keeps it on my camera most of the time.

Cheers

[2n10]

70-200 for pretty much the same reasons as everyone else.

[RLPhoto]

70-300mm is a lens I would have no use for, nor desire to have one. 

[Kevmeister!]

Sweet, thanks everyone!! now to find that genie 

[daveheinzel]

How come the 10-400 1.4L IS pancake isn't on the list? I'll take two.

[Drizzt321]

70-200. Fast, accurate, razor sharp and enables the super sensitive 2.8 dual cross types to be used on any high end body. Also, lovely bokeh

Pretty much this, plus f/2.8 is very nice in the dark alley's where I like to shoot...errr...photograph stuff

[scrappydog]

70-200, no question.  Why?  Wide aperture, AF speed, 4-stop IS, super sharp, excellent color rendition, beautiful bokeh, and it renders shots with sublime blend of sharpness combined with an anti-aliased softness.  I haven't shot with the 70-300, but I don't need to: the wider aperture of the 70-200 is sufficient for me.

[neuroanatomist]

Bad genie, that's a bad g'damn genie!!  First, you have to assess the victim's lamp polisher's needs. He may want the Ferrari, but if he has to haul his boat (that was going to be the second wish) over the dirt road to the lake, he needs the Land Rover.

The 70-200 II is a great general purpose zoom, excellent for portraits, sports, etc.  Perhaps less good as a travel lens. Also consider...do you need the extra 100mm? 

What body?  Personally, I found the 70-200 II to be an awkward focal length on APS-C - too long indoors, often not long enough outside.  On APS-C, the 70-300 L may be better for the reach. On FF, 70-200 is a great range.

One mor thing...if the genie can deliver the 70-200 II, he could also deliver the 70-300 L and $750 for something else...17-40L, 50/1.4 + 85/1.8, 600EX-RT, etc.

[viggen61]

Everything published about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II is peppered with superlatives. It may well be the best lens in the class. Add to that the availability of up to a 70-400 mm range, using the Canon III series extenders that the 70-300 cannot use, and it just can't be beat.

Sure, that's $3,500 in white Canon optics, but if the genie was giving me the lens...

[Videoshooter]

70-200L IS II.

I can use extenders to go longer if needed.

[Drizzt321]

Bad genie, that's a bad g'damn genie!!  First, you have to assess the victim's lamp polisher's needs. He may want the Ferrari, but if he has to haul his boat (that was going to be the second wish) over the dirt road to the lake, he needs the Land Rover.

The 70-200 II is a great general purpose zoom, excellent for portraits, sports, etc.  Perhaps less good as a travel lens. Also consider...do you need the extra 100mm? 

What body?  Personally, I found the 70-200 II to be an awkward focal length on APS-C - too long indoors, often not long enough outside.  On APS-C, the 70-300 L may be better for the reach. On FF, 70-200 is a great range.

One mor thing...if the genie can deliver the 70-200 II, he could also deliver the 70-300 L and $750 for something else...17-40L, 50/1.4 + 85/1.8, 600EX-RT, etc.

The problem, in my opinion, is that said genie wasn't offering the 200L f/2.0 instead. Leaving aside the price, I suspect I'd go with that over even the 70-200L IS II, even though the 70-200 is a much better general purpose. There's just something about 200@2.0 (like the 135@2.0) that I'm really wanting badly.

[iaind]

Another vote for 70-200  as it takes extenders