Going to FF from APS-C, need lens advice

[canon816]

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.

I would agree with most of this.  However the 70-300 is no where near as sharp as the 70-200.  Just because there is overlap on the focal length don't expect the images to be as good with the 70-300.  I would not take the advise of selling the 70-200 to get the 70-300.

Buying a 300 f/4 prime is a great suggestion though and this lens works well with the 1.4x converter.

[tiger82]

Wow, a lot to think about. It's a little bit harder because I am not moving to FF exclusively, I depend on the 7D and sports to make $ right now.   Thanks for the hint on the 70-300 DO and its resale value.  Speaks volunes of the desirability of the lens. I'll look at the 100-300L and consider the 70-300L a bit more. 

[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.

I would agree with most of this.  However the 70-300 is no where near as sharp as the 70-200.  Just because there is overlap on the focal length don't expect the images to be as good with the 70-300.  I would not take the advise of selling the 70-200 to get the 70-300.

Buying a 300 f/4 prime is a great suggestion though and this lens works well with the 1.4x converter.

Nobody advised him to sell the 70-200L TO GET the 70-300L.  All that was stated is that if the poster WANTS to get the 70-300L no matter what, then there is no sense in having both.  Which, there isn't.

[canon816]

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.

I would agree with most of this.  However the 70-300 is no where near as sharp as the 70-200.  Just because there is overlap on the focal length don't expect the images to be as good with the 70-300.  I would not take the advise of selling the 70-200 to get the 70-300.

Buying a 300 f/4 prime is a great suggestion though and this lens works well with the 1.4x converter.

Nobody advised him to sell the 70-200L TO GET the 70-300L.  All that was stated is that if the poster WANTS to get the 70-300L no matter what, then there is no sense in having both.  Which, there isn't.

Actually... you did.  At least thats how it looks to someone who is reading your post.

I understand that you specifically said that he could consider selling the 70-200 if he wanted a 70-300, and while this may not be advising him to do so it sounds like it is... which I just wanted to point out that this was not a great decision. 

He currently has a 70-200 F2.8 IS which is a magnificent lens.  It works well with both the 1.4x and 2.0x tc and will autofocus with any camera with either converter giving a usable range of 70-400mm (not considering crop factor). 

The 70-300 is an f4-5.6 lens and will not autofocus with either TC unless you are shooting with a previous generation 1D body. (And only the 1.4x will AF)  So for most camera bodies you would have less focal range to work with and lower IQ if you opted for the 70-300.... I don't really understand why the OP is considering the 70-300 when he already owns the 70-200 F2.8 with TC's, which are wonderful.... except maybe for clarification on his 3rd question.   Answer:  Yes, its better to just use the setup you have then to pursue either the 70-300 or the 28-300....

Not trying to pick on you.... but your post can be interpreted as advise on selling the 70-200 to get the 70-300. Which, I think the OP would be very disappointed with that decision.   

[neuroanatomist]

However the 70-300 is no where near as sharp as the 70-200.

In what parallel universe?  Unless you're talking about the 70-300 non-L, in which case, certainly.  But, the OP has the 70-200/2.8 IS MkI, and the 70-300mm L is a fair match for sharpness across the range when the 70-200 is stopped down to comparable apertures (and with both wide open, the 70-300L is sharper). 

He currently has a 70-200 F2.8 IS which is a magnificent lens.  It works well with both the 1.4x and 2.0x tc and will autofocus with any camera with either converter giving a usable range of 70-400mm

Allow me to edit for content:  He currently has a 70-200 F2.8 IS which is a magnificent very good lens.  It works well sort of ok with both the 1.4x and delivers soft images with the 2.0x tc and will autofocus with any camera with either converter giving a usable range of 70-400mm280mm, or 70-400mm if you have a high tolerance for mushy images

If the OP had the 70-200/2.8 IS MkII, it would be a different story.  But the MkI is the least sharp of the three 70-200/2.8 zooms (and the f/4 IS is sharper, as well), and the MkI does not handle teleconverters well at all. 

For example - you can see that comparing 70-200/2.8 IS at 280mm f/5.6 (stopped down) to the 70-300 L at 300mm f/5.6, the latter is sharper.  As for the 2x TC, here's what that does to IQ.  Hmmm...looking at that, the effect in the center is not as bad as I anticipated - but that's because the bare lens at 200mm f/2.8 is not that good in the center (at least, when compared to the MkII). 

So, compared to the 70-200/2.8 IS, the 70-300L would be an IQ upgrade if the OP needs the 200-300mm range, but the tradeoff is a loss of one stop of light.

[canon816]

Allow me to edit for content:  He currently has a 70-200 F2.8 IS which is a magnificent very good lens.  It works well sort of ok with both the 1.4x and delivers soft images with the 2.0x tc and will autofocus with any camera with either converter giving a usable range of 70-400mm280mm, or 70-400mm if you have a high tolerance for mushy images

I stand corrected.  I hadn't realized that lenses that produce razor sharp images were no longer considered magnificent.  My apologies. 

Also, in my universe... the 70-300mm is very mushy at 300mm.  Much mushier then the 70-200mm +1.4x and cropped to make up for the 20mm loss in optical focal length.  And while I agree that the 70-200 + 2.0x is mushy (I don't own a 2.0x TC because i don't have an appetite for the soft images) at least the OP would have AF and another 100mm then the already mushy 70-300 "L" at 300mm. 

[neuroanatomist]

I stand corrected.  I hadn't realized that lenses that produce razor sharp images were no longer considered magnificent.  My apologies. 

Also, in my universe... the 70-300mm is very mushy at 300mm.  Much mushier then the 70-200mm +1.4x and cropped to make up for the 20mm loss in optical focal length.  And while I agree that the 70-200 + 2.0x is mushy (I don't own a 2.0x TC because i don't have an appetite for the soft images) at least the OP would have AF and another 100mm then the already mushy 70-300 "L" at 300mm.

Interesting.  I've used a 70-200mm MkI on a couple of occasions, and 'razor sharp' was not my experience, at least when shooting wide open.  My MkII, OTOH, is razor sharp.

As for the 70-300L, do you own one?  If so, you might want to have Canon check it over - as I linked above (here it is again), Bryan at TDP found just the opposite, and nothing mushy about the 70-300L at 300mm.  Now, if you want 'mushy' just set that aperture drop down to wide open (f/4) at 280mm - like this.

[canon816]

I stand corrected.  I hadn't realized that lenses that produce razor sharp images were no longer considered magnificent.  My apologies. 

Also, in my universe... the 70-300mm is very mushy at 300mm.  Much mushier then the 70-200mm +1.4x and cropped to make up for the 20mm loss in optical focal length.  And while I agree that the 70-200 + 2.0x is mushy (I don't own a 2.0x TC because i don't have an appetite for the soft images) at least the OP would have AF and another 100mm then the already mushy 70-300 "L" at 300mm.

Interesting.  I've used a 70-200mm MkI on a couple of occasions, and 'razor sharp' was not my experience, at least when shooting wide open.  My MkII, OTOH, is razor sharp.

As for the 70-300L, do you own one?  If so, you might want to have Canon check it over - as I linked above (here it is again), Bryan at TDP found just the opposite, and nothing mushy about the 70-300L at 300mm.  Now, if you want 'mushy' just set that aperture drop down to wide open (f/4) at 280mm - like this.

There is certainly a lot of copy variability among lenses.  I do not own a 70-300L, but i was very interested so I did my due diligence to try it out.  I found that it was quite nice through 200 but at 300mm really dropped off.  As for the 70-200 F2.8 Version I... razor sharp. 

And my benchmark for sharpness is my 300mm f2.8 IS version I.   

I will repeat though that copy variability can be a source of opinion both good and bad for lenses.  Take the 100-400 L lens as a prime example.....

[neuroanatomist]

I will repeat though that copy variability can be a source of opinion both good and bad for lenses.

Agreed.  Also, it need not be inherent sharpness - most of my zoom lenses have required different AF microadjustments across the range, so the focus can be right on at the wide end but off at the tele end, or vice versa.  I'm glad the 1D X and 5DIII have the capability to enter two AFMA values for zooms (although even then, sometimes that's not enough...).

[IIIHobbs]

Personally my beginning FF kit would be a 5D Mark II w/24-105L kit lens.  70-200L II IS lens.  And a 300mm f/4L prime lens.  This being coming up from APS-C.  Why would I do that?  Because that's exactly what I did when I went to FF

^This!

The 300 f4 IS is an affordable and very sharp lens and a perfect way to get back the reach you lost moving to a FF camera. 

I did the same thing as bdunbar (initially) and was very pleased by the speed and accuracy of the 300 f4 IS. I enjoyed shooting with the 300 focal length so much, I replaced it with a 300 f2.8 IS. Having caught the prime-bug, the 70-200 2.8 IS was then replaced with a 135 f2; no regrets at all.

[tiger82]

Wow, thanks for all the responses.  Since I have a collection of excellent L lenses, 200 f/2, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 IS f/2.8, 100 f/2.8 IS Macro, and 8-15 f/4 fisheye, I think it is a better idea to get the FF body first and shoot with my lenses to see where I am lacking.  So here are the bodies that fit my budget: new 5D2 - $1900, used 1Ds3 - $2500, new 5D3 - $3200

So if want to have a full frame body now rather than wait for what Canon may announce later, what are the merits of the 3 above?  I can compare the specs directly but I'd appreciate this group's vast experience to provide insight beyond specs.

Thanks again.

[mdm041]

I cannot speak for the 1Ds3 but if you like to do sports then stay away from the 5dMkII.  AF is slow and since you have a 7d you will feel like you just went back a few years.  IQ is great but AF makes it not so great for action.

I use a 7d and 5dMkiii and use them both to shoot some sports.  With the FPS the Mkiii does pretty well and the AF is awesome fast and accurate.  The extra reach on the 7d and the extra 2fps makes me keep it around.  I only use it for outdoor wildlife and sports shoots. 

I use my 70-200 on the 7d but really want to use my 5dMKiii more so I am going to add the 300F4 or 400F5.6.

[canon816]

Wow, thanks for all the responses.  Since I have a collection of excellent L lenses, 200 f/2, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 IS f/2.8, 100 f/2.8 IS Macro, and 8-15 f/4 fisheye, I think it is a better idea to get the FF body first and shoot with my lenses to see where I am lacking.  So here are the bodies that fit my budget: new 5D2 - $1900, used 1Ds3 - $2500, new 5D3 - $3200

So if want to have a full frame body now rather than wait for what Canon may announce later, what are the merits of the 3 above?  I can compare the specs directly but I'd appreciate this group's vast experience to provide insight beyond specs.

Thanks again.

Of the three bodies you are thinking about I would recommend the 5DIII, especially if you are comfortable with this price point.  I upgraded from a 5DII to a 5DIII and the cameras are worlds apart.  Canon did a great job of upgrading the AF system.  Where my II would have trouble locking on to moving subjects and did more hunting especially in low light, the III just nails it all the time.  Also the difference in image quality is dramatic.  There is so much more detail captured by the III.  Not to mention high ISO performance.... which is stellar. 

I also shoot with a 1DIV and don't like pushing it past ISO 2500.  When the light gets low I pull out the 5DIII and shoot right up through ISO 10,000.  Even though there is noise at this level it is a much better noise to deal with then the other bodies and easy to clean up in post.  No red pixels and the details retained at high ISO are very impressive as well.  (I print a lot at 24x36 and sometimes larger... so detail matters more then it would for magazine quality or web use)

Below is a shot at ISO 10,000 with minimal Noise reduction.  I added a stop and a half of exposure to the scene in camera as it was well after sunset and too dark to see these details with my eyes through the lens.

Canon 5DIII, 600mm f4 @ f5, 1/1250 sec, ISO 10,000, cropped for composition.

Bottom Line (In my opinion):  While both the 5DII and 1DsIII are great cameras... the 5DIII is well worth the extra cost.

[Skulker]

I've just gone from 7D to 1Dx.

Dont plan anything untill you see how the 70-200 performs on the FF. With the 1Dx the focus is so fast and so good it has really surprised me. So if you want to you can crop harder. AND with the 2X it is still as quick as the 7D with the lens only, well that's what it seems like to me.

So my advice is WAIT and try it for yourself before you do anything.