70-200 f/4 - 70-300 f/4-5.6

[richlondoner]

First post be nice

I shoot mainly wildlife and nature shots, some birding.

I have the 70-200 L f/4 is and it's a great lens. I also have a 300 f/4 L is. Plus a 1.4mk ii extender. All on a 7d.

I have a journey to Atlanta (work) and Martinique this year, but being based in the UK means a long journey and I don't want to lug around too much heavy equipment as I will also be taking a 10-22 or the new 16-35. I don't have any longer reach apart for the mad sigma 50-500 but I'm not taking that, far to big and heavy.

So the question is. Do I buy the 70-300 L and take that or do i take the 70-200 and couple it with the extender.

I am also considering getting a kenko extender if I get the 70-300.

If I do buy the 70-300 I will sell the 70-200.

Thanks
Rich

 

[Random Orbits]

If you have the 70-200 f/4 IS, then I'd stay with that and bring along the 1.4x. If you have the non-IS version, then I'd go for the 70-300L. The 70-300L works well for a travel lens. However, getting the 70-300L might force you to reconsider your lens mix.

 

[Loswr]

I will point out that the 70-300L is shorter (retracted) than the 70-200/4L - it fits vertically in many bags whereas a 70-200/4 would need to lay flat and take up two 'spaces' in the bag.

I will also be taking a 10-22 or the new 16-35.

The 10-22 is an ultrawide zoom, the 16-35 is a wide-to-normal zoom (unless you're also bringing a FF camera for the 16-35). I'm not sure one is a substitute for the other.

IMO, the best APS-C standard zoom for travel is the 15-85.