Canon EF 70-200L

I am a "serious amateur" with a brand new Canon EOS 30D. I am currently shopping for lenses, and I'm very interested in the EF 70-200L, but I'm agonizing over IS versus non-IS; and F2.8 vs F4.0

I've read the Photodo reviews, and was pretty much "ready" to purchase the F2.8 IS, until I spoke to a Canon representative (in Tokyo, Japan) last week who quietly advised me to avoid the IS lens, and also told me he preferred the F4 version over the F2.8 (He declined to elaborate much further as he said he felt obligated to "support" all Canon products.)

My apologies if I'm re-stating a tired question, but I'm interested to receive more opinions / recommendations regarding the Canon 70-200 "family of lenses." Which one would you recommend that I buy?

Also, after reading several of your reviews (and horror stories from others), I've become nervous about getting a "bad" lens - right out of the box. Forgive my naivete, but I am astonished to learn that such a wide disparity of lens quality can, and does, exist in the high-end Canon products. How does one "verify" the quality of a newly purchased lens? Is it "obvious" straightaway, or should I prepare for serious "bench testing?"

Thanks for the advice!

Unless there is a specific problem with a lens, it makes far more sense to go with an f2.8 model rather than f4. Plus, the stablising factor will make it easier to use at the 200mm end of the range. If you were happy with the tests you'd read, i'd discount this spurious advice, particularly since your contact refused to explain why.

I own the 70-200 2.8 IS and its a wonderful lens. I do believe that the f/4 version of it is also optically excellent, but every serious photog I've spoken too is willing to spend the extra $ for the 2.8.

I have and use both the 70-200 2.8IS and the 70-200 4L. The 4L is tack sharp, sharper to varying degrees than the 2.8IS at any f stop. The 2.8 is also about twice the weight and more than 3 times the cost. So what would I carry? 75% of my shots are with the 2.8IS. The 4L is great but it can't compare in terms of low light, or action at low light and it has a beautiful bokeh wide open that just can't be duplicated by the 4L. Also, for anything but action/sports, the IS makes other wise impossible hand held shots no problem.

If your budget will allow get both, us the 4L for tack sharp stills or when you have lots of extra light. Use the 2.8 for everything else. Another bonus is pop the 1.4x adapter on and you have a near 300mm image stabalized zoom that is still respectably fast. I haven't owned the 300mm 4L for a while, but I believe the 2.8 with the adapter would give the 300mm a run for its money at the long end.

Just get the 2.8IS, you will never regret it.

Thanks much for all the great advice. I'm pretty well convinced that the F2.8 is the way to go. Regards!