Going to FF from APS-C, need lens advice

[tiger82]

I'm looking at either a 28-300 or a 70-300 lens to use with a FF body. I use 70-200 f/2.8L IS that I use with my APS-C and I want to make up for what I lose on the long end. I'd like your answers to:

1. What are the pros and cons between the L and non-L versions of the 70-300 besides the cost?
2. Is the zoom mechanism of the 28-300 as much of a nuisance as the 100-400 that I used to have? Does the zoom range make it worthwhile? Is it overly heavy?
3. I have the 1.4x and 2X teleconverters, would using them on my 70-200 be better than going with either 70-300 or 28-300?

Thanks in advance.

 

[tiger82]

Been doing a little research and looks like the 70-300 L and the 28-300 are both slide barrel zoom designs. I'm considering the 70-300 DO, any experience?

 

[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.

 

[charlesa]

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.

Concur, although I would go for a 300 mm prime myself.

 

[Loswr]

1. The 70-300 L is excellent. The non-L is very mushy at longer than 200mm - you'd be much better off cropping from your 70-200L.

2. The 28-300L is nearly a twin to the 100-400 in size, weight and handling, although it has the mount gasket that completes the weather sealing. I like it as a walkaround lens on FF. Personally, I don't find the push-pull to be a nuisance - it's fast, which is great for a lens with a broad range.

3. If you have the original version of the 70-200/2.8 IS, I would skip the extenders - it doesn't handle them well from an IQ standpoint. The MkII does very well with the 1.4x and decently with the 2x.

Assuming you have a standard zoom for FF, or will be getting the 24-105 kit, that would pair her very nicely with the 70-300 L.

I would skip the 70-300 DO. The size is great, the IQ is decent if you apply extra sharpening and contrast in post, the zoom creep is horrible, and whatever you do, don't even think about buying a brand-new copy of the lens. Used copies sell for $700-800, I bought one used and after a few months, decided I didn't like it, and sold it for the same amount I paid.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I use my 7D when I'm focal length limited and my 5D MK II for all around shooting. I do have a 100-400mm L but it usually gets used on the 7D.
I'd keep your crop body for times where you need more reach, it might cost less than a new lens, and having a backup camera is good.

 

[sdsr]

Do you have your FF yet? If not, you may want to wait, for two reasons.

First, I don't know whether your 70-200 2.8 is I or II, but in my experience the 70-200 2.8 II (which I've rented) and 70-200 f/4 IS (which I own) are so sharp on FF (mine's 5DII) that crops from them at 200mm are sharper than the 70-300 non-L (which I own) is at 300mm and at least as sharp as the 300mm f/4 prime (which I've rented; not sure what to make of my brief, iffy experience with a copy of 70-300L, which at 300mm was sometimes marginally sharper than my 70-300 non-L at 300mm, sometimes much the same, sometimes worse). Depending on how your 70-200mm works on your new camera you may conclude that you don't need a lens that goes to 300mm at all. Ideally you could rent or borrow and find out first hand if you need the extra 100mm.

Second, if the rumours are true, there will be a new 100-400 within a few months.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Never make a purchase decision based on a rumor. A new 100-400mmL has been rumored for at least 7 years, thats a long time to wait for a rumor to happen.
I hope it comes out this year, but I would never wait for a rumor like that one.

 

[Loswr]

...I would never wait for a rumor like that one.

Rumor?!? Heck, these days, even a formal announcement from Canon is no guarantee that a lens will be available anytime soon…

 

[tiger82]

Thanks for the responses. I guess I misinterpreted the 70-300L zoom: the barrel extends but the mechanism to move it is rotation. So it's not an internal zoom as I'm used to on my 70-200 f/2.8L IS (non-II) and it zooms like my 24-70 f/2.8. I also shoot with a 200 f/2 and 100mm f/2.8 Macro. I do mostly sports but it's time to expand my horizons. I'm definitely going FF, 5D2, 5D3, or 1Ds3 and waiting to see what Canon announces for FF in the next 6 months. I guess if I skip getting a new lens, I can get more camera like a 1Dx. Do I get more camera or more focal length as I lose the 1.6 factor when I am shooting FF? I will continue to shoot my 7D for sports. Oh, what is one to do to get the right equipment in the FF world if one has been living for a decade in the APS-C world?

 

[Loswr]

Oh, what is one to do to get the right equipment in the FF world if one has been living for a decade in the APS-C world?

Spend money. Lots of money.

 

[tiger82]

Thanks, but not really useful. There's "lots and lots and lots", "lots and lots", and "lots" of money. I'm trying to use the least number of "lots". If I had unlimited amounts of money, I'd be on the GOP presidential ticket and wouldn't need this group's advice. I would buy the entire Canon and Nikon lens lines and all 3 or each's top DSLRs. Unfortunately, I have to watch my Benjamins.

 

[bdunbar79]

Thanks, but not really useful. There's "lots and lots and lots", "lots and lots", and "lots" of money. I'm trying to use the least number of "lots". If I had unlimited amounts of money, I'd be on the GOP presidential ticket and wouldn't need this group's advice. I would buy the entire Canon and Nikon lens lines and all 3 or each's top DSLRs. Unfortunately, I have to watch my Benjamins.

I think he was joking. Breathe!

 

[bdunbar79]

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

 

[pj1974]

My recommendation is to keep your crop body with either the 70-300mm L zoom, or a good copy of the 100-300mm L zoom for when you are distance limited. Both lenses are great lenses with the 70-300mm L being superior in terms of image quality (IQ) and IS, but of course 100mm shorter. Personally I don't like the weight or zoom mechanism of the 100-400mm L.

Depending what exactly you're going to be photographing at the long end (eg do you need f/2.8, and will teleconverters affect AF too much so as to be a huge negative...), but yes - usually going FF and wanting 'great quality telezoom beyond the 35mm equivalent of 300mm' IS going to cost big bucks. I find 200mm range at the tele-end limiting for my style of photography.

That's why I'm so happy with the 70-300mm L. On my 7D, it's 35mm equivalent to 480mm, and is very sharp- definitely way sharper than the average 70-300mm nonL.. though there are even poorer quality L lenses around (eg SLRgear's test copy has IQ WAY below what most copies are).

The 70-300mm non-L doesn't have the same sharpness, contrast, true USM focus nor 4-stop effective IS of the L. Of course the L has a much superior build quality too- which comes at a weight penalty (though I can hold the 70-300mm L for hours matched to my 7D!). The 70-300 non L is a good lens for the price, but its not in the same league as the L. You'll need to decide on your own 'cost vs image quality' determinations.

The 28-300mm is an 'all round lens' - but generally I prefer dedicated / specific lenses for the purpose. That's why on a crop I like the '2 lens' travel combination of 15-85mm and 70-300mm L, and then primes for other purposes. All the best for your decision, and hope you continue enjoying photography.

 

[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.

 

[Loswr]

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.