$1000 .. what to buy

[Act444]

It seems redundant to have more than one telephoto zoom.

Not necessarily...I enjoy the flexibility of having the 70-200 2.8 for indoor use/sports, and having the option of the much smaller, lighter 70-300 for general outdoor photography because not only is it manageable for an entire day, it has 100mm extra reach...

Of course, most people are best off weighing the pros and cons and picking one. Thankfully I'm fortunate enough to be able to have both.

[neuroanatomist]

It seems redundant to have more than one telephoto zoom.

Not necessarily...I enjoy the flexibility of having the 70-200 2.8 for indoor use/sports, and having the option of the much smaller, lighter 70-300 for general outdoor photography because not only is it manageable for an entire day, it has 100mm extra reach...

+1

I have the 70-200/2.8L IS II, also used for indoors/sports and sometimes portraits (when not using primes).  I have the 100-400L for birds/wildlife (when I don't want to carry the 600 II).  I have the 28-300L as a one lens solution that extends into the telezoom range. 

I just ordered the 70-300L as a travel telezoom - lighter, but more importantly more compact than either the 70-200 II or 100-400, fits vertically in my photo backpacks.

[tron]

It seems redundant to have more than one telephoto zoom.

Not necessarily...I enjoy the flexibility of having the 70-200 2.8 for indoor use/sports, and having the option of the much smaller, lighter 70-300 for general outdoor photography because not only is it manageable for an entire day, it has 100mm extra reach...

+1

I have the 70-200/2.8L IS II, also used for indoors/sports and sometimes portraits (when not using primes).  I have the 100-400L for birds/wildlife (when I don't want to carry the 600 II).  I have the 28-300L as a one lens solution that extends into the telezoom range. 

I just ordered the 70-300L as a travel telezoom - lighter, but more importantly more compact than either the 70-200 II or 100-400, fits vertically in my photo backpacks.

I see that you didn't resist finally 
As I have already mentioned I am interested in your impressions mostly regarding the opposite use of rings.
P.S It will fit nicely vertically on the bataflae 26L bag I just ordered 

[neuroanatomist]

As I have already mentioned I am interested in your impressions mostly regarding the opposite use of rings.
P.S It will fit nicely vertically on the bataflae 26L bag I just ordered 

I'll let you know on the rings - lens arrives tomorrow.  TDP's specs show it as the same (retracted) length as the 24-70/2.8L II with the hood mounted, and that fits vertically in my Flipside 300 - so I assume the 70-300L will be the same.

[neuroanatomist]

As I have already mentioned I am interested in your impressions mostly regarding the opposite use of rings.
P.S It will fit nicely vertically on the bataflae 26L bag I just ordered 

I'll let you know on the rings - lens arrives tomorrow.  TDP's specs show it as the same (retracted) length as the 24-70/2.8L II with the hood mounted, and that fits vertically in my Flipside 300 - so I assume the 70-300L will be the same.

So...I got the 70-300L on Thursday, AFMA'd it that night (a constant +2 at four focal lengths across the zoom range), and took it on an excursion Friday afternoon.  The size is great - it does fit vertically in the Flipside 300, so I was able to take four lenses (and I needed all four).  It also fits in a Lowepro Lens Exchange 100 AW, so that'll be nice on a belt to pair up with the 24-70 II.

I did find the reversed placement of the zoom/focus rings (relative to my other L zooms) a bit annoying.  I'm sure I'll get accustomed to it, although frequently switching off with the 24-70 II will slow that process down (it would have paired well with the EF-S 17-55/2.8 when I had it). 

I just ordered the Tripod Mount Ring C for it.  It's a small enough lens and my RRS ballheads are robust enough that it's not really needed for balance (though it won't hurt).  But I think the tripod foot will give me a good place to rest my hand, keeping it off the focus ring and positioning my fingers under the zoom ring.

The convenience of the lens and it's excellent IQ more than offset the annoyance of the ring placement, IMO.

[tron]

As I have already mentioned I am interested in your impressions mostly regarding the opposite use of rings.
P.S It will fit nicely vertically on the bataflae 26L bag I just ordered 

I'll let you know on the rings - lens arrives tomorrow.  TDP's specs show it as the same (retracted) length as the 24-70/2.8L II with the hood mounted, and that fits vertically in my Flipside 300 - so I assume the 70-300L will be the same.

So...I got the 70-300L on Thursday, AFMA'd it that night (a constant +2 at four focal lengths across the zoom range), and took it on an excursion Friday afternoon.  The size is great - it does fit vertically in the Flipside 300, so I was able to take four lenses (and I needed all four).  It also fits in a Lowepro Lens Exchange 100 AW, so that'll be nice on a belt to pair up with the 24-70 II.

I did find the reversed placement of the zoom/focus rings (relative to my other L zooms) a bit annoying.  I'm sure I'll get accustomed to it, although frequently switching off with the 24-70 II will slow that process down (it would have paired well with the EF-S 17-55/2.8 when I had it). 

I just ordered the Tripod Mount Ring C for it.  It's a small enough lens and my RRS ballheads are robust enough that it's not really needed for balance (though it won't hurt).  But I think the tripod foot will give me a good place to rest my hand, keeping it off the focus ring and positioning my fingers under the zoom ring.

The convenience of the lens and it's excellent IQ more than offset the annoyance of the ring placement, IMO.

Thanks for letting me know. I had a chance to use it for a minute. Weight was OK but the rings were a bit of a problem. Good choice with the tripod foot. I believe that it will be steadier. My 70-200 f/4L IS is also safe with no tripod ring but I occasionally grab the ring of my 300L f/4 (non-IS) which has a plate and put it on 70-200 when I intend to shoot a lot of pictures in tripod.

[bholliman]

It seems redundant to have more than one telephoto zoom.

Not necessarily...I enjoy the flexibility of having the 70-200 2.8 for indoor use/sports, and having the option of the much smaller, lighter 70-300 for general outdoor photography because not only is it manageable for an entire day, it has 100mm extra reach...

+1
I have the 70-200/2.8L IS II, also used for indoors/sports and sometimes portraits (when not using primes).  I have the 100-400L for birds/wildlife (when I don't want to carry the 600 II).  I have the 28-300L as a one lens solution that extends into the telezoom range. 
I just ordered the 70-300L as a travel telezoom - lighter, but more importantly more compact than either the 70-200 II or 100-400, fits vertically in my photo backpacks.

I've been thinking about adding a 70-300L as well.  I have the 70-200 2.8 II, but at times need more reach and a lighter/more portable lens.

[tpatana]

You're quite well covered already. I'd go one of these:

-17-40 and drink the rest of the money

-Sell the 70-200 and get the Mark II, plus kenko tube-set. That'll get ok macros

Depending if you want to add wide or get macro. You could add the tubes to your current lens too, but I love the Mark II. Occasionally I've thought about the 100L, but 70-200 covers already good enough so for me it's not worth it. Macro problem is that the DoF is crazy shallow, e.g. here:

[dstppy]

I just ordered the 70-300L as a travel telezoom - lighter, but more importantly more compact than either the 70-200 II or 100-400, fits vertically in my photo backpacks.

That's not why you did it . . . 

You did it because they're like Pokemon to you . . . gotta catch em all.   

[tron]

I just ordered the 70-300L as a travel telezoom - lighter, but more importantly more compact than either the 70-200 II or 100-400, fits vertically in my photo backpacks.

That's not why you did it . . . 

You did it because they're like Pokemon to you . . . gotta catch em all.   

Well, I am not neuro but this can not completely right. He does not have 500mm f/4L IS II, 800mm f/5.6L IS, 200mm f/2L IS, 200-400 f/4L 1.4X.

And - I think - he does not have 8-15, 17TS-E, 24 1.4II.

(@neuro please can you verify?    )

So you see there's always room for ... improvement ... OK just joking.

To tell the truth I have suspicions that I have L.A.S (Lens Acquisition Syndrome) but at least I have sold a few up to now (6 lenses plus the battery pack of my stolen 40D) 

Never the less very interesting comment, I am sorry I replied to your post since I am not neuro but your post may have struck a chord with me     

[Zv]

Tron - I think I have the opposite of L.A.S goin on. Got the selling bug. Already sold 2 lenses this month and going for a third! Luckily this ailment brings home some bacon!

[neuroanatomist]

Well, I am not neuro but this can not completely right. He does not have 500mm f/4L IS II, 800mm f/5.6L IS, 200mm f/2L IS, 200-400 f/4L 1.4X.

And - I think - he does not have 8-15, 17TS-E, 24 1.4II.

All true.  I notice you left off the 300/2.8L IS II from your list...perhaps you are aware that that lens is high on my list for a future purcahse?   

[Zv]

Well, I am not neuro but this can not completely right. He does not have 500mm f/4L IS II, 800mm f/5.6L IS, 200mm f/2L IS, 200-400 f/4L 1.4X.

And - I think - he does not have 8-15, 17TS-E, 24 1.4II.

All true.  I notice you left off the 300/2.8L IS II from your list...perhaps you are aware that that lens is high on my list for a future purcahse?   

That's odd, I thought this woulda been your next lens!

 

[tron]

Well, I am not neuro but this can not completely right. He does not have 500mm f/4L IS II, 800mm f/5.6L IS, 200mm f/2L IS, 200-400 f/4L 1.4X.

And - I think - he does not have 8-15, 17TS-E, 24 1.4II.

All true.  I notice you left off the 300/2.8L IS II from your list...perhaps you are aware that that lens is high on my list for a future purcahse?   

I have just forgotten it! But quite a coincidence!    Are you thinking of it as a lighter/smaller alternative to 600 (perhaps with a 2X) ?

[neuroanatomist]

I notice you left off the 300/2.8L IS II from your list...

Are you thinking of it as a lighter/smaller alternative to 600 (perhaps with a 2X) ?

Partly.  But primarily for sports, as my daughters get to that point...