Gear Talk > Lenses

Going to FF from APS-C, need lens advice

(1/6) > >>

tiger82:
I'm looking at either a 28-300 or a 70-300 lens to use with a FF body.  I use 70-200 f/2.8L IS that I use with my APS-C and I want to make up for what I lose on the long end.  I'd like your answers to:

1.  What are the pros and cons between the L and non-L versions of the 70-300 besides the cost?
2.  Is the zoom mechanism of the 28-300 as much of a nuisance as the 100-400 that I used to have?  Does the zoom range make it worthwhile? Is it overly heavy?
3.  I have the 1.4x and 2X teleconverters, would using them on my 70-200 be better than going with either 70-300 or 28-300?

Thanks in advance.

tiger82:
Been doing a little research and looks like the 70-300 L and the 28-300 are both slide barrel zoom designs.  I'm considering the 70-300 DO, any experience?

bdunbar79:
The 70-300L is not a slide barrel zoom, it's a rotation zoom. 

I'm not sure having a 70-200L and a 70-300L zoom lens is the way to go.  If you want to keep your 70-200L, I would personally either get the 100-400L or the 300 f/4L prime lens.  If you want the 70-300L zoom, you might consider selling the 70-200L lens. 

charlesa:

--- Quote from: bdunbar79 on August 19, 2012, 02:42:34 PM ---The 70-300L is not a slide barrel zoom, it's a rotation zoom. 

I'm not sure having a 70-200L and a 70-300L zoom lens is the way to go.  If you want to keep your 70-200L, I would personally either get the 100-400L or the 300 f/4L prime lens.  If you want the 70-300L zoom, you might consider selling the 70-200L lens. 

--- End quote ---

Concur, although I would go for a 300 mm prime myself.

neuroanatomist:
1. The 70-300 L is excellent. The non-L is very mushy at longer than 200mm - you'd be much better off cropping from your 70-200L.

2.  The 28-300L is nearly a twin to the 100-400 in size, weight and handling, although it has the mount gasket that completes the weather sealing. I like it as a walkaround lens on FF. Personally, I don't find the push-pull to be a nuisance - it's fast, which is great for a lens with a broad range.

3.  If you have the original version of the 70-200/2.8 IS, I would skip the extenders - it doesn't handle them well from an IQ standpoint. The MkII does very well with the 1.4x and decently with the 2x.

Assuming you have a standard zoom for FF, or will be getting the 24-105 kit, that would pair her very nicely with the 70-300 L.

I would skip the 70-300 DO. The size is great, the IQ is decent if you apply extra sharpening and contrast in post, the zoom creep is horrible, and whatever you do, don't even think about buying a brand-new copy of the lens.  Used copies sell for $700-800, I bought one used and after a few months, decided I didn't like it, and sold it for the same amount I paid.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page