Trading my Canon 70-300 L for a 70-200 2.8 L ?

[jcoz]

Hello Guys,

I've been following this website for a while but never joined the forum for some reason...

So I have a Canon 7D, I currently have a Canon 24-70 f2.8 L that I use for portraits, general photography and when I travel, a Canon 400 L that I use for birding, and my beautiful Canon 70-300 L that I use for airplane spotting, some birding and to take pictures of my kid from a distance - the 24-70 does not let me do nice blurry backgrounds if I fit more than the head + shoulders in the frame...

Because I am mostly in the range 150-250 mm for airplane spotting, I was thinking of selling the 70-300 and buying the 70-200 f2.8 mk II. I know it is an amazing lens, should work well with an extender if I need a little extra distance. I wonder if it is worth upgrading, or if it best to get the Canon 135 f2 or Sigma 85 f1.4

I figured any of those 3 choices will end up costing pretty much the same and I am not too found of prime lenses and my personal experience with Sigma is not so great (ex owner of Sigma 120-400 and Sigma 50 f1.4).

What do you think is best ?

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its a matter of weight.  Since you have a large Sigma lens, if the weight is no issue, the Canon is wonderful.  Don't expect a huge IQ improvement, the big thing is that it can produce excellent IQ at f/2.8.
 
 

[Act444]

I have both of those lenses and to me, they each serve a different purpose.

The 70-200 2.8 is great but it is heavy to manage for an extended period of time. So unless I really need the 2.8 (and I do, many times, shooting indoors) I just stick with the smaller, lighter 70-300 for my telephoto needs.
The question I would ask is if you really need the extra stop(s) because if you trade in, you'll carry around the extra weight whether you need it or not.

Quality-wise the difference is not huge. I find the 70-200 sharper at 70mm but they are almost indistinguishable by 200mm.

[K-amps]

the 70-300L is as sharp as the 70-200 mk.ii wide open.  With TC's the 70-200 will get you 280mm but less sharp than the 70-300L @280mm... even less sharp with 2x TC... but you get some extra length. As long as you are ok with that, it should work.

The 70-200 2.8 mk.ii is an amazing zoom... but it is only 200mm for your plane spotting.

The 70-300 is light and sharp... I used to own one.

[Random Orbits]

The switch to 70-200 II + 1.4x can work but it will be heavier/longer than the 70-300L.  Try it out in a store before buying.  The difference might be significant to you.  Even though the 1.4x isn't large, it does affect the body/lens balance more than its size.  You'll gain about 1+ stops compared to the 70-300L, but I'm not sure if it's worth the increased weight and cost.

Even though you have a bias against primes, it might make sense to get one specifically for portraiture.  It'll cost less than switching to the 70-200II + extender.  The question is what focal length makes sense to you.  I use the 135L on FF, and it works well, but I'm not sure if it'll be too long for you on the 7D.  You could try fixing the 70-300L at 135mm at see if that will work for you.  The 135 focuses quickly and can track action well (not a big difference compared to the 70-300L or 70-200 II), plus the 2+ stop advantage that it has over the 70-300L will give it a distinct blur advantage.  If you're subject isn't moving and/or if 135 is too long for you, then it might also make sense to look at the sigma 85 f/1.4, canon 85 f/1.8 or canon 100 f/2.

[RGF]

For handholding, I prefer the 70-300L.  Very light and well balanced.  From a tripod or a handhold for very short periods of time I will use the 70-200 F2.8 II.  But it is HEAVY to handhold  for extended periods.

Then again you may be 30 and a body builder so the lens could be feather weight to you 

[jcoz]

I'll try 85 and 135mm, I really want/need something that lets me frame more than a head and still have a nice background, I'm not sure which of the 85 f1.4 or 135 f2 is best for that. The 70-300 does not do that unless I stand back 30+ feet and zoom at 300mm

But the 70-200 gives me a greater zoom range with a wide aperture to complement the 24-70, maybe it won't be as blurred as with an f1.4 or f2 lens but is is more polyvalent...A prime will force me to move...my son is 20 months and runs all over the place. Plus it may be easier to tell my wife that I am upgrading rather than adding to my lens collection

I'm actually more concerned about the bright white finish of the lens than weight, so I Was looking at the new Tamron but that is another discussion !

[jcoz]

I just wanted to follow up.

85 and 135 primes are not for me yet, I tried with the 70-300. On the other hand, 200 mm is too short for airplane spotting. So the only thing to do is save and get a 70-200 2.8

Thanks for the help

[Mick]

I have used both and at the same apeture and focal length there is no differance in quality when printing at A3 that i could see. I guess i could quote MTF charts but im not a techno nurd so I wont. You wont see any differance in the real world. The 70-200 is amazing wide open and as good as any zoom around but if you dont need 2.8 go for the 70-300.

[jcoz]

Thanks for the input, I'll definitely keep my 70-300, it is way too polyvalent. I think I may have looked at the problem the wrong way: instead of having a wider aperture with a telephoto lens, I should look at a much wider aperture on a 35/50mm lens - it works for portraits (I use a crop sensor), would allow nice blurry backgrounds even in a not-so-huge indoor space, and same thing outdoors.

[jcoz]

What are your thoughts on the Canon 70-200 2.8 with a extender 1.4 (I need to research on the forum)? 280mm f/4 is pretty good, I've read reviews (digital photography . com) and seen a few samples and it looks pretty good for those times when I need that extra reach, which will not be very often given the lack of access to a major airport for spotting.

[Random Orbits]

What are your thoughts on the Canon 70-200 2.8 with a extender 1.4 (I need to research on the forum)? 280mm f/4 is pretty good, I've read reviews (digital photography . com) and seen a few samples and it looks pretty good for those times when I need that extra reach, which will not be very often given the lack of access to a major airport for spotting.

It's pretty good -- compares well to the 70-300L at 280/300mm.  AF is slower than bare lens, but usually still fast enough.  Again, the 70-200L II + 1.4x will be heavier and longer than the 70-300L.  The 70-200 II will give you a good portrait lens tho.  The 70-200L II +1.4x is a good solution if you're willing to carry the weight and size and factor in the additional cost.  What you gain is a fast bare lens that is great for portraiture.

[jcoz]

Well in a way if I keep the 70-300 I'll have one more lens in my collection, and may need to carry two. If I trade it I only need to carry the one

Now I just need to selly stuff before June so I can use the canon discount.

Thanks for your help guys !

[jdramirez]

For handholding, I prefer the 70-300L.  Very light and well balanced.  From a tripod or a handhold for very short periods of time I will use the 70-200 F2.8 II.  But it is HEAVY to handhold  for extended periods.

Then again you may be 30 and a body builder so the lens could be feather weight to you 

I had the 70-200mm f2.8 usm  for a while and it was heavy,  but it wasn't unbearable.  I  just upgraded to the is mkii  and I haven't gotten it yet,  but I'm going to guess i should be fine...  or I'll hit the gym and start with some free weights.

[jcoz]

...  or I'll hit the gym and start with some free weights.

This is the argument I needed to convince my wife