Selling 70-300 IS - Suggest Replacement?

[RustyTheGeek]

OK, I may end up selling my EF 70-300 IS lens in a little barter deal. So what to replace it with? I have the following bodies to use it with... 30D, 40D, 60D, 5D, 5D3, 6D. I shoot lots of kids on campouts, swim teams in indoor pools, indoor church stuff, etc.

As indicated in the poll, I already have a 70-200 f/4 IS and a 1.4x TC. I also have access to borrow a 70-200 f/2.8 IS v1 when I need to. I have always liked my EF 70-300 IS and I could even borrow it down the road if I really needed to, it would just be a bit inconvenient due to distance.

So, I'm debating on whether I should jump on this "reason" to upgrade or just let it go and not have a decent lens longer than 200mm. (I also have Tamron 18-270 VC and 28-300 VC superzooms for less critical walk around use but those are obviously compromise lenses.)

I guess I'm leaning toward the 70-300 L if I get anything mainly because it's a simple direct upgrade, it won't totally break the bank and it's not as big/heavy as the other L choices. Thoughts? Obviously all of these choices have different merits.

Thanks in advance for your time, efforts and opinions. I know everyone is busy so please don't spend more than a few hours or days pondering a perfect solution for me. Thanks! I appreciate it.

 

[FlowerPhotog]

I have both the older EF 70-300IS and the more recent 70-300 "L". I was not satisfied with the long end (200 to 300mm) of the earlier lens, had several wildlife shooting episodes that I didn't like the final product, just not sharp. I bought the "L" version soon after it came out - the difference is like night and day. Incredibly sharp at all focal lengths, both on my t2i and my 5D3. The old one has been gathering dust ever since - suppose I ought to get around to selling it.
I do mostly outdoor photography, but even in mediocre light, the IS on the L version is extremely good, and with the better high ISO performance of the 5D3, I haven't had too many instances where I was wishing for a 2.8 lens. If you are going to be doing a lot of indoor shooting, maybe a faster lens would suit you better, but I know you won't be sorry if you get as good a copy of the 70-300 "L" as I have.

 

[SteveCSmith]

You have quite a lens selection and access to loaners ;D If I were in your shoes, I'd wait and see what announcements the next 6 months brought for a 100-400 replacement (I passed on the current one) or maybe a 400mm fixed? But that depends on how much zoom you want (er, need?).

That said, I replaced my 70-300 IS with the L version and have never looked back. I found it inadequate at church for the kids programs and sporting events (ended up nabbing a 70-200 IS 2.8 II last year on sale), but you have access to that (I really don't use it much except low light).

Its too bad that you can't put the 1.4x TC III on the 70-300L - it would be sweet when the firmware comes out for the 5d3.

 

[Dark Reality]

I would go for the 300 or 400 prime. theres a 300 f4 thats in the same price range.

 

[expatinasia]

The 70-300L IS is an amazing lens. Light and easy to carry/travel with. It is not great in low light though.

You could maybe get that and a kenko 1.4x DGX (forget the model of the new one) which works with the 70-300L as your canon won't.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

The 70-300L IS is an amazing lens. Light and easy to carry/travel with. It is not great in low light though.

You could maybe get that and a kenko 1.4x DGX (forget the model of the new one) which works with the 70-300L as your canon won't.

Thanks. Actually I have a Tamron 1.4 TC but I appreciate the suggestion.

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

I sold my 70-300 two weeks after using the 70-200 f/2.8 ii. It is quite possible that I ended up with a bad copy, but the 70-200 f/2.8 ii was everything I was looking for in a lens (though I ended up using a monopod after about two hours). I have not used the 70-300L but my needs are geared more towards 2.8 and faster glass.

-Tabor

 

[M.ST]

I use the lens since over ten years on APS-C without any problems.

I called it the "most fun for little money lens". Buy another one. It´s old but great for the money you pay for it.

If you have the money you can also buy the EF 70-300 IS L lens. It performs very good on APS-C, but it´s not the best for FF (CA etc.).

For FF I recomment the EF 70-200 f/2.8 II L IS lens. But some of the lenses deliver images (compared to the EF 70-200 f/4.0 L IS) with a little red color cast. That´s a problem if you shoot portraits, but it´s fixable in camera raw.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Thanks M.ST. I'm with you. The 70-300 IS is great for casual work. In the past year however, doing the swimming shots for a few hours during an indoor swim meet has made me consider an upgrade. So far I've used the 70-300 IS, 70-200/2.8 IS L v1 (not v2) with and without a Tamron 1.4 TC and my 70-200/4 IS.

My thoughts are...

- Upgrade to something like the 28-300 to have a higher IQ multipurpose lens.
- Upgrade to the 70-300 L and have a great lens but not change much else. (A little boring but still nice.)
- Get the 70-200/2.8 IS v2 and gain several upgrades at once w the ability to use a TC for more reach. (But lose wide use and slower AF with the TC.) Also gain some good indoor use, portrait, etc. This is my favorite option but it's higher dollar and I can borrow the v1 lens and not have to spend the money. And, it's still nice to the have the reach of the 300 when necc.

Or just throw it all to the wind and make do for a while. Given my attitude this year about Canon's insane prices, this is also a pretty attractive option. I don't care who you are or what you do, Canon is asking way too much for their new lenses (both L and non L) and the 70-200 is still a bit overpriced although it's near acceptable at the moment.

 

[sdsr]

I haven't used my 70-300 non-L since I bought a 70-200 f/4 IS; crops from the latter look better than the former, and its mechanically superior. I recently bought a 70-300 L which is as good as everyone says (the one I bought and returned a few months ago wasn't) - so good, in fact, that I'm not sure there's any point keeping the 70-200 f/4 IS given the extensive overlap in range and similar image quality. You could instead get a 300mm f/4, but it's less versatile and any slight advantage it may have in sharpness is likely offset by the superiority of the IS on the 70-300L.

If you want to keep your 70-200 and want added reach, why not consider a 100-400L or the current Bigma, i.e., Sigma 50-500 with image stabilization (better than the IS on the 100-400L)? I recently rented one and liked it so much, once I got used to the weight, that I bought one. Worth trying, I think.

 

[dhofmann]

If you want to go beyond 300mm, then sell not just the 70-300mm IS but also the 70-200mm f/4L IS, and get the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + 2x TC. Then you'll have the best of all worlds: 70-200mm at f/2.8, 98-280mm at f/4 (with your Tamron 1.4x TC), and 140-400mm at f/5.6 (with the 2x TC).

 

[RichM]

OK, I may end up selling my EF 70-300 IS lens in a little barter deal. So what to replace it with? I have the following bodies to use it with... 30D, 40D, 60D, 5D, 5D3, 6D. I shoot lots of kids on campouts, swim teams in indoor pools, indoor church stuff, etc.

I'd definitely go for the 70-200 2.8. It is my go-to on either the 7d or the 5d2, and would be great on the 5d3. I shoot a fair number of indoor swim meets, and for crappy pool lighting, it is great. You wouldn't need the 70-200 4 any more, so that could reduce the cost.

 

[BrandonKing96]

If you want to go beyond 300mm, then sell not just the 70-300mm IS but also the 70-200mm f/4L IS, and get the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II + 2x TC. Then you'll have the best of all worlds: 70-200mm at f/2.8, 98-280mm at f/4 (with your Tamron 1.4x TC), and 140-400mm at f/5.6 (with the 2x TC).

+1

That was exactly what I was thinking of suggesting then I saw this comment.

 

[jcollett]

Kind of a hard question to answer as the primary need for the lens was not specified. Given the large selections of lenses and bodies you already have, I would strongly suggest going for a decent tele prime. Indoor events could use a 200mm f/2 or the 300mm f/2.8 II. You can add TC's to them for different lengths. These are suggested as price was not given as primary issue. Since you have so many camera bodies, you don't really need the functionality of the zooms as much as a person with only one body to work with. My 2 cents at least.