>>3623427>>3623445Yup I ended up going for a 70-200 f4 IS instead. The only main size downside compared to the 70-300 DO is that I can't keep the camera with the lens attached inside of my bag, I'd have to swap it out with one of the other 2 ef lenses I carry to store it in the bag. But that's not as big of a deal as trying to fit the f2.8 would have been. I would have had to lay the f2.8 flat instead of upright in my bag, which would mean I'd have to take 1-2 fewer lenses with me, which I felt was too big of a tradeoff.
I do a lot of hiking and stills photography so the lighter weight helps when I've got film medium format in the bag and a tripod on the outside as well. Yeah it sucks having to pay $500 instead of $300 but it just seemed like a much better purchase. Just kind of funny imagining the DO retailing for more originally.
