Telephoto prime or zoom - value deal

[e17paul]

I’m rationalising my modern kit to Voigt 20, Canon 24 IS & 50, and what?

I’m selling the great but heavy 70-300L, should I look for one of the newer plastic fantastic zooms, or maybe a 100 or 135 prime for a bit of speed.

I have 6D & 100D bodies giving me 20/24/50/??? on full frame and crop equivalent of 32/38/80/??? on the dinky little 100D

 

[Maximilian]

Hi Paul!

Before we can give advice I suppose you should first tell us, what you mostly shoot.

But my first impression:
From your post I read that you don't need the reach of 300 mm FL.
If you still need or want up to about 300 mm, personally I'd just keep the 70-300L, because it's one of the best tele zooms Canon ever made.
If you for example change to the EF 70-300mm II USM you will not gain so much advantages in size, weight and return of money,
but you will lose a lot in built quality, color, contrast and so on.

For the lenses you mentioned:
The 135L is great portrait lens on FF, if you can get enough space between you and subject. On crop you'll get a decent tele.
Try that FL out with your zoom, if you like it or not.
The 100/2 or 85/1.8 are nice small and cheap lenses, but color and contrast don't pop IMO and they have some CA, that needs to be corrected.
I own the 85, but I would sell it in a heartbeat if Canon made a Mark II of it.

If you need more advice please tell us a bit more about your preferences.

Edit:
I really like the reviews from Dustin Abbott and I just read from him about the 70-300L:

Although I no longer own it, I highly recommend the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Lens: You can read my review here: I really love this lens. It is fairly heavy, but is nicely compact and travels nicely. It is built like a tank, has great sharpness and color, and is very consistent throughout its focal length. This is one of Canon’s hidden gems, and rewards every one who owns it. I had a hard time parting with mine…

He replaced it with the 100-400LII.

 

[Del Paso]

What about a 2,8/200 L?
Very good quality, inexpensive and lightweight.
But, in my opinion, NOTHING, absolutely nothing can beat the 70-200 IS II L zoom .
It's a fantastic lens!

 

[Kit.]

I really like the reviews from Dustin Abbott and I just read from him about the 70-300L:

He replaced it with the 100-400LII.

I wonder if anyone ever sold their 100-400LII to replace it with some other lens in that focal range.

 

[Del Paso]

I'd rather go naked than sell my 100-400 L II, my most often used lens, along with the Summilux Asph. 35 mm.

 

[AlanF]

I wonder if anyone ever sold their 100-400LII to replace it with some other lens in that focal range.

I sold one of my pair of 100-400mm IIs when I bought a Sigma 150-600mm C. 6 months later, I bought another one (but kept the Sigma as it was a very good copy) so my wife and I could both travel with one. Having nearly frozen to death on Mt Hermon last week, I wouldn't go naked to keep one.

 

[SteveC]

I'd rather go naked than sell my 100-400 L II, my most often used lens, along with the Summilux Asph. 35 mm.

I said something similar about the 100mm macro (the non-L one). Although I think I used the words "from my cold dead hands."

 

[navastronia]

What about a 2,8/200 L?
Very good quality, inexpensive and lightweight.
But, in my opinion, NOTHING, absolutely nothing can beat the 70-200 IS II L zoom .
It's a fantastic lens!

I think I'm the only man alive who hated that lens. Maybe I got a bad copy?

 

[Sporgon]

Back in 2015 when the 5Ds was introduced I posted a thread titled "Dawn of a new era for primes" as this 50mp camera would allow much more cropping and increase the versatility of primes. Nobody seemed interested at the time but I think I was proved right; there has been an explosion of new prime lenses since then.

5Ds : dawn of a new era for primes ?

My photographic career goes back well into the days of 35mm film, and with that medium cropping was generally very undesirable. You will occasionally find people on internet forums who claim that their 35mm film is about 20 mp because it scans at around 20 meg of information, but much of that...

www.canonrumors.com

I took my own advice and moved to the 5Ds, now I only own one zoom.

If you want to stay light and cheap I'd say go for the venerable EF 100/2. Fast focusing and excellent quality as good as the 135L. (I apologise for the blasphemy. No warning please mods). If you want prime but heavier I'd recommend the Tamron 85/1.8 VS. Very good portrait lens with IS but AF not as snappy as the 100.

I'd think long and hard before losing the EF 70-300L though. I did.

 

[Dantana]

I have the 200/2.8 L and it's sharp, compact and was relatively cheap for a used copy. I find that I don't use it all that much though. I picked up the 70-300L for a trip last year and was super happy with it (even had some good luck with a Kenko 1.4x on it).

Part of my brain loves the idea of primes, of zooming with my feet, or forcing myself to think a bit more. But, and this may just be for me, it seems to work out better on the wide/normal end.

 

[Ozarker]

Back in 2015 when the 5Ds was introduced I posted a thread titled "Dawn of a new era for primes" as this 50mp camera would allow much more cropping and increase the versatility of primes. Nobody seemed interested at the time but I think I was proved right; there has been an explosion of new prime lenses since then.

5Ds : dawn of a new era for primes ?

My photographic career goes back well into the days of 35mm film, and with that medium cropping was generally very undesirable. You will occasionally find people on internet forums who claim that their 35mm film is about 20 mp because it scans at around 20 meg of information, but much of that...

www.canonrumors.com

I took my own advice and moved to the 5Ds, now I only own one zoom.

If you want to stay light and cheap I'd say go for the venerable EF 100/2. Fast focusing and excellent quality as good as the 135L. (I apologise for the blasphemy. No warning please mods). If you want prime but heavier I'd recommend the Tamron 85/1.8 VS. Very good portrait lens with IS but AF not as snappy as the 100.

I'd think long and hard before losing the EF 70-300L though. I did.

The jump in mega pixels from my 5D Mark III to the 30mp of the R has made primes more appealing to me than they were for exactly the same reason; more latitude for crops. The 5Ds must be a dream for that. A high resolution R is on my wish list for the future for precisely that reason. I wouldn't care if it only shot 2 fps for what I do.