100-400 II and 135 f2 L to Replace my 70-200 2.8 IS II (+ remaining kit shuffle)

[bluenoser1993]

I bought a 7D as my first DSLR mainly because of what I read about the 70-200. I loved the idea of the 2.8 plus it allowed me to add a 2xIII for what I thought would be occasional use. Well, with 4 kids and my wife all in sprint canoe and kayaking the 2x is on more than not, and frankly still not enough lens often. I love using the 70-200 alone, but find that if it isn't at 200, it is mid-range wide open and has made many of my favorite candids of the family.

The announcement of the 100-400 II has had me constantly in deep thought about my entire lens line-up (wouldn't my employer love to know that). Ultimately owning both these zooms would be great, and it isn't so much a financial decision, but if I ever want my wife to smile at me again, there is only room for one of these in my house! So I'm going with the advise I've read over and over here, buy the lens for the focal length you need, and for me that is the 100-400.

At the other end of things, when I have the 24-105 mounted I more often than not wish I could get wider, and when the 10-22 is mounted I always wish I could reach a little further. Also, 90% of the time the 10-22 doesn't get below 16.

Before:
7D, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 2x III, 10-22, 24-105L, 35L, 50L

After:
7DII, 100-400 II, 1.4x III, 17-55 f2.8, 50L, 85 f1.8, 135L

The process has already begun, the 7D is sold (at an obvious loss, but not bad as it was a used purchase), the 10-22 is sold and I replaced it with a 17-55 for even money. The 35L will be tough to let go, but it is mint and I should be in money when I swap for a used 135. The 17-55 is obviously no 35L substitute, but with IS it can actually get non action shots in lower light, and I need the 135L to not miss the 70-200 soooo much.

Am I making crazy moves? I see it as a reduction in flexibility, but covering more of the range I need with zoom, while covering the remaining areas I gravitated to with the current zooms with quality primes.

All comments or suggestions welcome.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It sounds like you know what you need. For a lightweight carry around outfit, don't overlook the 70-300mm L as a possibility, but if you need a equivalent 160- 640mm lens, the 100-400 is your answer. I'd hang on to the 70-200mm lens until you decide, if you order from the major camera sellers, you have 30 days to decide on the new lens.

 

[privatebydesign]

It is by no means a crazy move, it looks like you have made a very thoughtful and logical choice.

However I could not give up the 70-200, I'd just wait until budget allows for the inclusion of the 100-400 MkII. In my experience once you sell a lens like that it starts to haunt you, but I can't fault your logic

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sounds like a plan. I would have advised against swapping the 70-200 for the 100-400, but not after seeing you adding portrait primes to your kit. I do think the 17-55/2.8 is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.

Do think if you really need 50-85-135 lenses in your kit. Not that what others' do matters, but the usual trinity combinations are 35-85-135 or 24-50-135 (I have the former, but I use a FF body).

 

[bluenoser1993]

Thanks for the boost of confidence, I respect all of your opinions. I've learned quite a bit from your posts since I've been visiting here the last couple years. Should have listened more to the advice about buying lenses for the body you have, not the one you might have some day, and skipped the 24-105. I've slowly come to grips with the fact that I enjoy reach, but just can't swing the long whites. A 7DII is never going to compete with a FF, but from what I see the banding issue seems to be addressed, which even from my amateur view was enough to bother me on the original.

I know I will miss the 70-200 2.8, but I'm sure the 100-400 II will be great. Maybe I'll eventually add a 70-200 f4 if it just isn't working out not have a mid-long zoom - it's almost as good image wise.

I'd really like to wait and see some reviews, I haven't placed the order yet. Any advice on popular new releases as to how many months before supply and demand start to leave units on the store shelf, or at least a reasonable delivery time? I don't really need it until the spring, as late as May/June maybe. Would you recommend ordering soon for that date, or is there still time? I realize I'm asking a crystal ball question, but in relation to other big release items from Canon.

 

[MadHungarian]

And if you decide you want wide-angle again at some point, the new 10-18 IS STM is a nice little light & cheap lens too. I keep a little SL1 at work with the 10-18 STM and 55-250 STM. And also my old 17-55 (which was the first lens i ever bought, and not a bad one at that).

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Thanks for the boost of confidence, I respect all of your opinions. I've learned quite a bit from your posts since I've been visiting here the last couple years. Should have listened more to the advice about buying lenses for the body you have, not the one you might have some day, and skipped the 24-105. I've slowly come to grips with the fact that I enjoy reach, but just can't swing the long whites. A 7DII is never going to compete with a FF, but from what I see the banding issue seems to be addressed, which even from my amateur view was enough to bother me on the original.

I know I will miss the 70-200 2.8, but I'm sure the 100-400 II will be great. Maybe I'll eventually add a 70-200 f4 if it just isn't working out not have a mid-long zoom - it's almost as good image wise.

I'd really like to wait and see some reviews, I haven't placed the order yet. Any advice on popular new releases as to how many months before supply and demand start to leave units on the store shelf, or at least a reasonable delivery time? I don't really need it until the spring, as late as May/June maybe. Would you recommend ordering soon for that date, or is there still time? I realize I'm asking a crystal ball question, but in relation to other big release items from Canon.

Your move has a lot of logic. I would use the 7DII with 100-400 II, 1.4x III, 15-85, 35L, Sigma 50A, 135L combination. 15-85 isn't as bright as the 17-55 but give you more at both wide and long ends, and the Sigma 50 Art outperfoms wide open the 50L. 50L is a love-hate relationship, I had it and was never happy because you have to stop it down to get sharp images.

 

[ahsanford]

I echo the veterans' comments in that you have a well thought out strategy. Not crazy at all.

If I'm going to be critical -- and this is admittedly pretty picky -- I'd point out that you seem to love portraiture-friendly primes -- you'll have three options between the 50L, 85 1.8 and the 135L. My guess is one of those primes will sit unused for large chunks of time. You might consider dropping one of those to free up funds for another focal length or (possibly) a bigger-ticket accessory you've been meaning to get: the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, a flash, a good ball head, etc. But I'm not sure what you do/don't have and what else you might be in the market for.

- A

 

[greger]

7D in 2012, 100-400 in 2013. I was happy with this combo until I tried to take pics of salmon swimming in a creek in shady lighting. I've had better results with my 70-200f4 IS USM with a 1.4 Extender. A 2.8 would have been better for me. I think you will be happy with a 7Dll and a 100-400ll. They might have done better. 7dll should handle higher
ISO better. Keep your 70-200 2.8 until you are absolutley sure you no longer need it. Good Luck!

 

[K-amps]

Can't argue with your logic, but I have a feeling you will miss the 70-200! Keep it till you are comfortable with the other substitutes.

 

[rs]

I'm seriously considering the 7D II and 100-400 II for the exact same reasons (although in addition to my kit). For the same reasons, I've got little need for that reach until Q1/Q2 next year, so I'm holding off to see what happens with reviews and prices.

My take is that the two should be an awesome combo for portable reach, but although the lenses MTF charts look razor sharp with the 1.4x attached, that f8 aperture will induce diffraction on the 7D II, so it won't be fully realised. I'm not sure if the extender will be better than cropping on that body.

It looks like you've got a well thought out upgrade strategy there, one which works better than your previous setup for your subjects.

 

[Joey]

I've made a similar decision. Just bought the 7dmkII, advertised my 70-300L for sale because I know I'll get more benefit from the new 100-400L when it becomes available here (December?). If the IQ of the new lens is as good as the 70-300 (early indications are it should be a little better) and it comes with a tripod collar, and is compatible with the extenders it'll be a winner for me. The two major problems I had with the 70-300 was the exorbitant price Canon wanted for the tripod collar and the fact it wouldn't take a Canon extender.

I was watching closely the discussions about the new Sigma 150-600, and the similar Tamron. The Sigma especially is very heavy (2.9Kg?) and there are questions about its autofocus performance. My new body (Camera body....) has fantastic autofocus capability and I don't want to compromise that with a lens that might not keep up. Also the 100-400 is half the weight of the Sigma - and the 1.4x won't add much weight to that. I'm on tenterhooks to read the reviews that will tell me whether the Canon lens with extender can match the IQ of the Sigma lens without.

 

[Plainsman]

The new 100-400 looks good on MTFs but when we get the reviews I suspect it will be reported that image quality falls off "slightly" at 300-400 just like the Nikon 80-400VR.

In fact with your 70-200 you've actually covered the range from 70 - 280 with a very good optic. For 280-400 get the current 100-400 classic (second hand or stock clearance - taking advantage of the price reduction).

The 135 f2 is only one stop better and could be replaced soon with an IS version. So maybe you need to have a rethink and certainly not make a move until you see some reviews.

 

[fragilesi]

Seems a sensible enough strategy to me.

If you can, even though I am a big fan of the 135L and bought it instead of the 70-200 2.8 I would be absolutely sure before you sold it that you are happy with being restricted by the primes or having the aperture penalty of the 100-400.

For me I wanted simply as much light as possible, valued the cost saving and the 135 focal length was good for what I wanted it for.

But the differences in aperture set against the 100-400 and the zoom flexibility set against the use of primes are significant. Worth trying it out before you hit the sell button on the 70-200 as other posters have said.

 

[tayassu]

Good strategy, although I'd let go of one of the primes (probably the 50/85) and it would be too less WA for me.

 

[bluenoser1993]

Some good comments regarding the prime choices. The evolution in thinking is that I want the 135L to replace what I loved most about the 70-200 2.8, extreme sharpness across the whole frame and the low light ability I'd lose with the 100-400. So that lens was a priority for me, and it has the AF speed to match. That left a big gap in focal length coverage from 55 to 100, so the 85 was more of an add in to cover it and it's pretty cheep. Maybe I'd be better off keeping the 24-105 and skipping the 85 1.8. The thing is that I can see going for a hike/bike ride with the 17-55 and picking one prime to compliment. I don't see me leaving the house carrying both 17-55 and 24-105.

Maybe the right way to go is stick with the plan above, but retain the 35L and skip the 85 at first. If the gap doesn't bother me, great. If it does, then maybe add the 70-200/4. I think that would be a good supplement to the 100-400. I'm not saying that I never carry the 70-200/2.8, but more often it accompanies a driving destination (or close to home). I see the 100-400 being the same, so a 70-200/4 may end up getting in the back pack more often. I haven't used a 7DII yet, but from all accounts it has gained some ISO performance (amount to be argued), so going from a 2.8 to 4 on the 70-200 won't really be performance loss. Provided I never compare the two, I'll never know what I'm missing.


EDIT: Plan above meant in the first post of the thread, not the first paragraph above.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

It's obvious that you have put a lot of thought into the plan.

I wouldn't let the 70-200 go, it's way too versatile. You'll likely regret it.

I also think the 15-85 may be a better all purpose zoom than the 17-55. The 15-85 will essentially be your 24-105 equivalent lens. I hate to see anyone sell the versatile 24-105L but on a crop camera, I understand. I just like the lens, it has a nice f/4 constant aperture, IS and L quality in a good size and weight.

I have the 7D2, upgrading to that is a solid decision that you will LOVE.

The 135L is a beautiful lens but the 70-200 f/2.8 vII has replaced it for many photographers.

And if you keep the 70-200, I doubt you'll need the 85 unless you just really love the lens. Again, many photogs have reduced their collections of primes because the 70-200 is so good. I have the 70-200 f/4 IS and while it is a stellar lens and much lighter, I almost never use it anymore. There is also a lot to be said for the bokeh that the f/2.8 version produces in a portrait. Add to that the compression advantage and the f/2.8 is hard to beat for portraits! Finally, if you have to shoot something indoors, in a gym or otherwise, you'll wish you had the f/2.8.

I would definitely sell the 50L, it is a touchy lens that I think isn't worth the trouble for its cost unless you are a huge fan of it.

Good luck! This is a great thread. It's a good example of why I love CR. There is the potential for many of us to get some good insight into what/why we have the kits we do. (And if those kits should perhaps be changed a bit!!)

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I've made a similar decision. Just bought the 7dmkII, advertised my 70-300L for sale because I know I'll get more benefit from the new 100-400L when it becomes available here (December?). If the IQ of the new lens is as good as the 70-300 (early indications are it should be a little better) and it comes with a tripod collar, and is compatible with the extenders it'll be a winner for me. The two major problems I had with the 70-300 was the exorbitant price Canon wanted for the tripod collar and the fact it wouldn't take a Canon extender.

I was watching closely the discussions about the new Sigma 150-600, and the similar Tamron. The Sigma especially is very heavy (2.9Kg?) and there are questions about its autofocus performance. My new body (Camera body....) has fantastic autofocus capability and I don't want to compromise that with a lens that might not keep up. Also the 100-400 is half the weight of the Sigma - and the 1.4x won't add much weight to that. I'm on tenterhooks to read the reviews that will tell me whether the Canon lens with extender can match the IQ of the Sigma lens without.

I agree that it's very uncool that Canon doesn't include the tripod collar with the 70-300L lens and charges a ridiculous amount for it separately. However, I haven't missed the collar since the lens is pretty light and also since the focus and zoom rings are swapped. If I had the collar on the lens, I wouldn't be able to hold and zoom it the same way I can with the 70-200L.

And FYI, I use a Kenko 1.4X DGX TC with my 70-300L often with good results. So you can do it, just not with the Canon TC.

 

[Patak]

Replacing 70-200 2.8L with 135 F2 is a good idea if you have to carrie your camera with you all the time. For weddings you hardly need 200mm. The weight of 70-200 2.8 was the only thing that prevents me from buying it.

 

[fragilesi]

I agree that it's very uncool that Canon doesn't include the tripod collar with the 70-300L lens and charges a ridiculous amount for it separately. However, I haven't missed the collar since the lens is pretty light and also since the focus and zoom rings are swapped. If I had the collar on the lens, I wouldn't be able to hold and zoom it the same way I can with the 70-200L.

And FYI, I use a Kenko 1.4X DGX TC with my 70-300L often with good results. So you can do it, just not with the Canon TC.

How good is that 70-300L + Kenko 1.4 combo? I tried it once with a second hand Kenko but it just wouldn't work at all, assume the Kenko was defective and sent it back. Would be interested in trying it again though.

And as I've said before, I think Canon made the right call on balance NOT including the tripod collar with the 70-300L. However, I won't back them on how much they charge for it as a separate item!