Tele for backpacking

[aroo]

Thanks for all the insightful replies. It's just as I feared: some great suggestions that'll set me back a good chunk of dough! Now I'm seriously considering that 70-300L and the various TC options.

Responding to some of the questions that have popped up: it seems worth having a true macro along, the working distance of a zoomed tele falls short for little creatures and textures (which I really get into). I also feel like there's f/1.8 to gain and very little to lose in bringing the 50mm.

For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?

 

[Deva]

Thanks for all the insightful replies. It's just as I feared: some great suggestions that'll set me back a good chunk of dough! Now I'm seriously considering that 70-300L and the various TC options.

Responding to some of the questions that have popped up: it seems worth having a true macro along, the working distance of a zoomed tele falls short for little creatures and textures (which I really get into). I also feel like there's f/1.8 to gain and very little to lose in bringing the 50mm.

For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?

Just to pick up your point about "TC options" - the 70-300L won't take a Canon teleconverter, except at the 300 end - Kenko is the widely recommended way to go.

I upgraded from the non-L 70-300 IS to the L, and it made a big difference - sharper pictures, better IS, but undeniably heavier (lighter than the 70-200mm L IS II though!). I'm very pleased with it, and will always have it with me when I'm roaming the countryside. I tend to find myself continually swapping between it and my 17-40mm for most "outdoors" shots, with the occasional 8-15mm thrown in for those really wide-angles.

 

[Shawn L]

Another thought would be the 28-300 L. I've rented that for a couple of trips and been pretty satisfied:

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-28-300mm-f3.5-5.6l-is

Shawn L.

 

[Leejo]

For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?

I am about to upgrade as Deva did, from the 70-300 IS USM non-L to the 70-300L.
I've had no problems but do notice the difference. (The L version wasn't available when I bought the original)
It's basically a Kit lens quality lens. Maybe fine for an older camera
Although the non-L is half the weight, it isn't that much smaller - and only a third of the price...
However even on a crop camera (7D) it isn't sharp above 200mm.
In comparison it is slower to focus, worse IS, not weather sealed and and a little slower in f stops in the middle range.
The DO is slightly better quality but nowhere near as good as the L Version.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I do this frequently and just to be clear I am an L nut. IQ and image consistency is top priority otherwise why waste my time? I use a 5DIII w/grip attached to a 300mm 2.8L and a 1.4XIII extender. I also pack a 70-200 2.8L attached to a 60D (for backup and 2nd crop body) and either a 100mm 2.8L if I plan to shoot any macro or a 24-70 2.8L for landscapes. All of this packs into a minimal ThinkTank Streetwalker Pro. On the outside I attach a water bottle and a carbon fiber monopod.

I also have the ThinkTank Urban Disguise Attachment kit which has straps that attach to the back back and your camera or camera strap. Allows me to carry the 300mm all day without any neck strain.

The pack is tight when it's all in there but I mostly always have at least one camera out ready to go attached to the backpack harness. If the weather turns bad I just put it all in the pack and cover it with the included rain fly.

This summer I'm doing a lot of photography-focused backpacking in mountains and forests. My primary considerations for choosing gear are handheld IQ, weight & pack space, and preference for weather sealing (when possible/practical). So far, I'm just about set on taking a 6D, 17-40L, 100L macro, and nifty fifty. Something tells me I'm going to need an option for more reach (animals), but the 400mm 5.6 available to me seems out of the question due to size. In the past I've used a 70-200 f/4 non-IS, but that was on a 7D.

Appealing to this forum's collective knowledge and experience, my question is whether I can get a 300mm+ lens weighing less than 800 grams that will beat the IQ of just cropping photos from the 100L. Or should I try and make do with the 70-200? Any thoughts? Thank you!

 

[Loswr]

For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?

Never used the non-L 70-300 IS, but reportedly it's at it's worst from 200-300mm, so a 70-200/4 and a 1.4x or some cropping is likely a better bet.

I owned the 70-300 DO for a while, and I really wanted to like it. The size was ideal - identical to my 24-105L (although heavy for it's size). IQ was the problem - needed work in post to increase contrast and sharpness, and the poor bokeh in some situations really couldn't be fixed. Horrible zoom creep, too (creep is the wrong word, implies slow movement...I once tracked a bird flying overhead with the lens at 300mm, and when I got to vertical the barrel retracted so hard the camera's eyecup almost gave me a black eye). If you buy a 70-300 DO, buy it used - you can find them for $700-800 (I did) and sell it for the same amount (which I also did). But I'd definitely take the 70-300 L (my trial with the DO was prior to the release of the L version).

 

[phixional ninja]

For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?

I borrowed a 70-300IS a couple of years ago, and really didn't care for it. It's possible that I tried a bad copy of it, and I also stayed out at the long end where I've since learned it is particularly bad, but I could never imagine wanting to own it. I recently upgraded from a 70-200 f4L to the 70-300L though, and I will add my vote for the 70-300L. The color, contrast and sharpness are all fantastic, and the build quality is what you would expect (excellent).

 

[jhanken]

Why not rent the 200MM F2.8L, a non-white lens that weighs in at less than 800g? Excellent sharpness, color rendering and portability. It's so good you can freely crop with little sacrifice. I think that with the 6D, 17-40L, 100L macro should about cover most situations.

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_200mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm#Specifications

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?

I've had two 70-300mm IS (Non L) lenses, and they were fine. For the price it was a good lens. Obviously, it was a huge step up when I bought my 70-200mm f/4L IS.

I'd vote for the 70-300mmL as well, if you absolutely need 300mm. One drawback to the 70-300mmL is that it doesn't support Canon extenders, but its small and relatively light.

Another possibility would be to rent a lens, Lens rentals will give some credit towards a new one, or at least they used to. That's in the event that you decide to get one after using it.

 

[jhanken]

For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?

Please don't get the non-L 70-300 IS. I have it, use it often, and every time I look at the images at 1:1, I am more and more disappointed with them. Looking to upgrade my telephoto zoom ASAP.

Don't know about the DO.

 

[stefsan]

I had two versions of the non-L 70-300 (I + III) and I never got happy with them. The pics were not too bad but not too good either (lack of contrast and sharpness). But where the non-L version really do not deliver is build quality: the barrel is made of plastic and not weather/dust sealed at all. There is a considerable amount of lens creep to deal with too. The L-version on the other hand is extremely well built and has a zoom lock. I never regretted shelling out the money for this lens .

 

[Haydn1971]

Looking for lightweight but fast and cheapish, have you considered either a 135mm f2 L or 200mm f2.8 L, paired with a 1.4x extender for more reach - the 135mm in particular doesn't look too conspicuous, I've found that I get better images cropping down than on my 70-300 non L zoom - doesn't have the flexibility of a zoom, but since I got mine, I can't actually recall using my 70-300

 

[Haydn1971]

For those with experience, how are the non-L 70-300 IS or the 70-300 DO?

See above - mine comes along for the ride these days. Looking to sell mine to a willing taker - output is fine in the 70-180mm range, but gets increasingly poor afterwards, focus searches badly compared to my L lenses, the IS is pretty good though. As others have said, 200mm f2.8 L or as I've done, the 135mm f2 L

I am considering something new to cover the 70+ zoom ranges, but coming to terms at the moment with a dual need for a unavailable 24-135mm f4 IS wish, the fact that I've spend about 3 months income in the last 6 months on Canon gear and the likelihood that I may prefer either a 300mm F4 IS, or the next incarnation of the 100-400mm or perhaps even the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 and a weekly visit to the chiropractor !

 

[DJD]

Here are a couple from my non-L 70-300.

Model: Canon EOS 7D
ISO: 800
Exposure: 1/500 sec
Aperture: 7.1
Focal Length: 300mm

Model: Canon EOS 400D (DIGITAL REBEL XTi)
ISO: 400
Exposure: 1/50 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Focal Length: 300mm

 

[bycostello]

mirrorless camera, crop sensor... like me fuji....

 

[RGF]

Maybe slightly on the heavy side, but the 70-300L is a good option - sharp wide open, weathersealed, compact and 4 stops of IS. No need to muck around by adding a 1.4 TC to a 70-200.

I was in your posiition a couple of years ago and after lots of looking around this was the option I selected, and was very happy with the choice.

+1. Strong endorse the 70-300L