Considering the 70-200 f4 is for my next lens

[KKCFamilyman]

Hey I have a dilemma. I have a 5d3 with the following
24-105
50 1.4
Various speedlites

I take Candids of the kids but I find myself wanting more reach. I rented the 70-200 f4 is and it was pretty nice. I currently can get it for $1100 from a reputable dealer but unsure if that's a good price or if I should hold out to see what else is offered by canon for the fourth quarter. I also want the 24-70 ii but would have to pay of the 70-200 first if I get it. So add focal range or a stop of light with the 24-70 ii or just wait. Any suggestions?

[kennephoto]

I would say get the 70-200 F4 for sure! I had the non IS version and I really liked it. I would imagine the IS version is even better. If you rented it and liked it then you cant really go wrong.

[KKCFamilyman]

Thanks. I just wish I rented it at home. I got it for a trip and only used it for a handful of shots but they were great shots. I just don't want to feel compelled because of the deal but then again if it's going to likely rise a few hundred then I would just buy it now.

[Random Orbits]

I vote for the 70-200, although you might also want to consider the 70-300L.  It's about 0.5 lb heavier than the 70-200 f/4 and you lose a fraction of a stop from 105-200mm, but it gains you 100mm at the long end, which comes in handy at zoos and when you're in the stands.

[kennephoto]

You could always buy it, use it for a while and sell it if you no longer like it or if it doesnt fit your needs. I buy and sell lenses a lot.

[bearbooth]

I have exactly the same as you.
24-105
50 1.4
70-200 f4 IS

I just brought the 70-200 a few days ago and its nice. I spent a day with it on my 5d3 with canon strap and it was fine, not too heavy.

If you need more reach, you could consider the kenko 1.4x extender, but it will stop it down to f5.6 though, autofocus is fine, at least to my beginner level.

Also your question about the 24-70 mkII, you already have that focus range from the 24-105, so would buying the 70-200 benefit you more now? or at least the period from now till the release of the 24-70 mk II
I know the new upcoming mkII is a completely different lens and you cant compare it to the 24-105, it should have better components, f2.8, better everything, but its release date has been delay.

[StephenC]

I've got the 70-200 f/4 IS and it is a fantastic lens, I think it is better than my 24-105 (hopefully to be upgraded to a 24-70 soon). I do miss the reach the crop camera used to give me, so I guess there is an argument for the 70-300 (which I haven't used). On the other hand, with the big megapixels the 5D III gives there is always the option of just cropping the photo. I would definitely recommend the IS version.

[Menace]

I used to have the 70-200 f4 - it's was my 2nd L lens and I mainly used it for portraits and absolutely loved it. Its sharp and weight will not be a prob for you.

As said before, you already have the wide angle covered so go for the 70-200; you'll be pleased you did.

Have fun. Cheers 

[LostArk]

Might I chime in and suggest the 135 f/2L.

5D2 135L 1/200 f/2 ISO 6400

Street Dreams by Nοah Fence, on Flickr

70-200 f/4 wouldn't have been able to get this shot. 70-200 f/2.8 IS II might have been able to finagle it, but even if I could afford it I wouldn't want to deal with the size and weight. Your 50mm f/1.4 should be able to handle most low light situations your 24-105 can't, so I would question the wisdom of a 24-70 II.

[Cannon Man]

In your place i would start with improving the most used focal lenght.

To me 85mm 1.2 II is just that and there is no zoom lens or prime under 100mm that can get close to the image quality. I have had the 24-105 and it is just a different world shooting with a good prime.

I also have the 70-200 2.8 IS II, and if you don'r really need the extra stop of light get the f/4 because it's half price and half weight. Just yesterday i took a 3 hour walk with my 1D IV & 70-200 IS II and the whole time i wished i would have had one of my primes or something lighter.

Go for primes is my suggestion. Keep the 24-105 and get the 85 1.2 II. You can do a lot with those lenses.

I am lucky to have the finance and to have this my profession. I use a TS-E 24 3.5 II, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II. But i started with just a 5D Mark II with 24-105 just 3 years ago.

[Marsu42]

I take Candids of the kids but I find myself wanting more reach.

For more reach at nearly the price of the 70-200/4 there is the 70-300L, sharpness is give or take - you should try that too before you decide. The 70-300L has some advantages (shorter, more reach, newest IS) and some disadvantages (non-constant aperture = f5 at 200mm, only non-Canon tc 1.4x = f8).

The 70-200/4 of course is a classic and good lens, but always looks strangely slim and long for me for something that starts at 70mm/4. For a 70-200mm the f2.8 is the best choice if you are willing to carry it. The really good thing about the 70-200/4 is that there are still rather cheap non-IS versions and you get L optical and build quality.

[pwp]

There's absolutely no doubt the 70-200 f/4, particularly the non-IS version represents extraordinary value for money. It's compact, light and has IQ to match it with the best. But the suggestions of the far newer L70-300IS also present a fairly compelling option. That extra 100mm....! Matched with your 5D3 the slower apertures shouldn't be a problem because of your ever present option to ramp up the iso and see very little image degradation. The L70-300IS understandably has a lot of fans.

But if it's candids of your kids that you most want to do, then rocket fast AF and premium bokeh would make me tend to suggest the legendary L135 f/2.

-PW

[Marsu42]

But the suggestions of the far newer L70-300IS also present a fairly compelling option. That extra 100mm....! Matched with your 5D3 the slower apertures shouldn't be a problem

... speaking of which: I forgot to mention that the 70-300L has another potential disadvantage on the new 5d3/1dx af system: the outer focus points are only horizontal, on the 70-200/4 it's cross-type all over. On the bright side the new 70-300L is tested to work extremely precise anyway since it's both the latest Canon tech working together.

[Rams_eos]

I have the 70-200 f4 IS and the image quality is just amazing. I tried the 70-300L at a Canon exhibition. It is a bit heavier but it is shorter (easier to pack in a bag). Image quality seems equivalent to the 70-200 and if I would do it again, I would definitively go for the extra reach of the 70-300.

[ivansebastian]

I used to have 70-200 f/4 IS, but honestly it didn't fit me well. Specially if you taking a lot of candid and portrait, I would say use 70-200 f/2.8 will serve your need much better. Now I use 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, and I love this lens (except for the weight, after I carrying it around for a while )