« on: March 18, 2014, 01:45:20 AM »
The 70-200 2.8L II is an excellent lens, and plays very well with the 1.4 III (my experience). I also have the f4L IS which is smaller and lighter. The 2.8 should do very well, but doesn't have the reach. 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS perhaps? Neuro loves his.
First time poster but been following for a little while now.
A little background, I've been an amateur photographer for a number of years now, first starting off with a 550d with the 18-55 and 55-250 kit lens which to me was a great starting point but then ended getting a 50mm 1.8 and 28 2.8 and getting good results when photographing my many fish tanks and reasonable results with cross country riding with the 55-250 in very good weather. Last year I ended up selling all the camera and the 2 kit lenses and purchasing the 70d and 18-135 STM lens. I mainly did this for the video and as a plus side, the photos were turning out better both on my primes for the fish and the 18-135 wasn't that bad at the sports side.
Now the thing I miss about my 1st setup was the reach of the 250 EF-S. The lens itself wasn't brilliant but I want to have something that range and the possibility of a little more reach if needed for wildlife. I was planning on going for the 100-400 replacement but this doesn't seem to be happening.... much to my announce.
So canon have kindly introduced a cashback offer for the 70-200 2.8 II with £210 off which got me thinking.
Not sure if I should go for this to use for everyday shouting (out and about/sports etc) giving me 112-320 on my 70d or do i wait for the 100-400 replacement?
If you advise to go for the 70-200mm II then what's the compatibility with teleconverters between this and the 70d? Its a dark art that I simply don't understand and get confused about but I was wondering if that could be my solution to get some extra reach.