Telezoom lens (70-300L vs 70-200 vs 100-400)- Advice

[Jens_T]

Hello,

I'd like to hear your opinion on what lens fits my needs best.
Recently I switched to FF and now it is time to upgrade my lenses as well.

What I do:
Mostly landscapes, tele for details and the occasional animal. While I am not hiking multiple days with my eqipment it should fit well into one backpack with other stuff and weight is an issue.
Sometimes people shots.

Current equipment
5D2, Canon 16-35, Tamron 24-70, 50/85mm primes and a Tamron 70-300VC

With the current cashback I was thinking about getting the new 70-200IS and a teleconverter for reach if I need it. On the other hand directly going for the 70-300 or 100-400 adds more reach at lower weight and cost.

The f2.8 of the 70-200 is nice to have but not an absolute must. A 70-200/f4 however would be too slow if I add a TC.
I understand that IQ from the 70-200/2.8 is best among these lenses and the -300 comes second.

Before I rent all these lenses for a weekend to test I'd be interested if you have advice or were in a similar situation.

Thank you
Jens

 

[Spooky]

Hi Jens,

I probably shoot similar to you, landscape / travel, and bought the 70-300L for the reasons of weight, size, zoom range & quality, in that order.

I already have an old Sigma 70-200 2.8, which is ok, but I don't use it that much (my style preference is wide angle) and the weight of a 2.8 lens is considerable. It was mainly used for motorsport pics.

I did think about the 100-400 but again prefer the wider end of the range, smaller size, better IS & more modern design.

With my 5d3 or 7d, I can crop in quite a bit with the excellent IQ of the 70-300L to get the 'pic'!

I can't praise this lenses quality high enough, and you will see other posts saying the same...

Regards

Martin

 

[Marsu42]

From everything you write the 70-300L is your lens because it unifies a small pack size (veeeery important when outdoors) with good iq (sharpness wide open, boekeh) and "always on" reach. For prolonged use it's important the weight is way below the 70-200L/2.8, and the 70-300L feels even less heavy because it's shorter, i.e. putting less torsion on the wrist.

When outdoors using a tc often is a pita since it takes time and it lets dust/sand enter the camera, but a Kenko tc (Canon doesn't fit) works fine with the 70-300L though the af performance/precision degrades somewhat, ymmv.

 

[rpt]

From everything you write the 70-300L is your lens because it unifies a small pack size (veeeery important when outdoors) with good iq (sharpness wide open, boekeh) and "always on" reach. For prolonged use it's important the weight is way below the 70-200L/2.8, and the 70-300L feels even less heavy because it's shorter, i.e. putting less torsion on the wrist.

When outdoors using a tc often is a pita since it takes time and it lets dust/sand enter the camera, but a Kenko tc (Canon doesn't fit) works fine with the 70-300L though the af performance/precision degrades somewhat, ymmv.

+1

Besides that, what you need to do is to see the focal lengths you shoot at. That should tell you what you need. I got the 100-400L for birds and animals. Having said that, I shot with it at the Grand Canyon and I did use it at 400mm.

 

[boateggs]

I got the 70-300L (not using the others and a good Canon direct refurb deal) because of: 1)in my price rage, 2)more reach than the 70-200IS, 3)awesome user reports from those who have it. I moved form the EF-S 55-250mm so it was awesome, but along side my 15-85 it is so much better. 100% still look useable for my anal-retentive amateur style. If you dont care about constant apature in telephoto try it. Im happy and my old man with his Nikon 70-200/2.8 was kind of jealous (my opinion through PP review, not his) that it was so sharp. Rent it and see I say.

 

[Jens_T]

Thank you to all your remarks to all that replied so far.

Besides that, what you need to do is to see the focal lengths you shoot at. That should tell you what you need. I got the 100-400L for birds and animals. Having said that, I shot with it at the Grand Canyon and I did use it at 400mm.

I did that and am in the 200-300mm (*1.6 for crop) range if I need details.
Price (in the range of the discussed lenses) is not so much an issue.
When the 70-300mm L came out I thought it was overpriced for the fact that it is a slow lense - which doesn't matter so much for landscape though.

Probably the best thing really is to rent the 70-300 and try it.

 

[chas1113]

The real dilemma is 70-300mm L vs. 100-400 L... fortunately there is an easy solution. Pick up a used 7D and you have an "effective" reach of 112-480mm. I put the EF 70-300L on my old 40D for the very first time in two years to shoot an outdoor event this weekend and was very pleased with the reach. With the EF 24-105mm for candids and overview shots on the 5DII, it makes a great two-body event combo. For tromping in the woods for flora/fauna, I would keep the same combo or go with the 70-300L on the full frame and maybe a 100 macro on the crop. For birding, I'd try the 70-300L on full frame and a 300/4 + TC on the crop (poor man's solution).

It's been said many times before but is worth repeating: f/2.8 zooms for indoors | f/4+ zooms for outdoors. Your situation doesn't demand an f/2.8 lens.

—chas

 

[expatinasia]

From everything you write the 70-300L is your lens

I agree.

You should also think about what it is you may be shooting in the future, if you think you may get into sports or shoot 70-300 in poor light then that is when the 70-200 f/2.8 is ii may be best, but for now I would think the 70-300L f/4.5-5.6 IS USM is your best bet.

 

[bholliman]

From everything you write the 70-300L is your lens

I agree.

You should also think about what it is you may be shooting in the future, if you think you may get into sports or shoot 70-300 in poor light then that is when the 70-200 f/2.8 is ii may be best, but for now I would think the 70-300L f/4.5-5.6 IS USM is your best bet.

+1 The 70-300L is your best combination of compact size and great IQ.

 

[Random Orbits]

The real dilemma is 70-300mm L vs. 100-400 L... fortunately there is an easy solution. Pick up a used 7D and you have an "effective" reach of 112-480mm. I put the EF 70-300L on my old 40D for the very first time in two years to shoot an outdoor event this weekend and was very pleased with the reach. With the EF 24-105mm for candids and overview shots on the 5DII, it makes a great two-body event combo. For tromping in the woods for flora/fauna, I would keep the same combo or go with the 70-300L on the full frame and maybe a 100 macro on the crop. For birding, I'd try the 70-300L on full frame and a 300/4 + TC on the crop (poor man's solution).

It's been said many times before but is worth repeating: f/2.8 zooms for indoors | f/4+ zooms for outdoors. Your situation doesn't demand an f/2.8 lens.

—chas

Another consideration is that the 100-400 weighs about as much as the 70-200 II. The 70-300 is the most compact and lightest of the three.

 

[HeavenHell]

Here's a shot I took yesterday of a Timber Rattlesnake.



I love this lens. Very sharp even at 300 mm and compact enough where I don't mind trudging through the woods with it all day.

 

[chasinglight]

I have both the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 100-400 on a 7d. I shoot everything landscapes to portraits to birds. I can tell you that there have been several times when the 70-200 was not long enough for those distant landscape details, and that's on a crop, so on FF it will seem even shorter. That said the 70-200 is without a doubt the sharpest of the bunch. And it is sharp! The 100-400 is great for its versatility. I use it mainly for wildlife, but I have used it for outdoor sports as well. It is a sharp lens, but anytime I can switch to the 70-200 I do because it is sharper. The 70-200 is also considerably lighter and weather sealed. Weather sealing is actually something to consider with the 100-400, as it is less weather sealed than most lenses as the push pull design lends itself to the possibility of moisture on the barrel getting in the lens and damaging the tension ring. I do not have hands on experience with the 70-300L, but the 100% crops from it do look great. Not sure I can give you a definitive answer, but it sounds like for your needs the 70-200 or 70-300L would fit the bill.

 

[rpt]

Thank you to all your remarks to all that replied so far.

Besides that, what you need to do is to see the focal lengths you shoot at. That should tell you what you need. I got the 100-400L for birds and animals. Having said that, I shot with it at the Grand Canyon and I did use it at 400mm.

I did that and am in the 200-300mm (*1.6 for crop) range if I need details.
Price (in the range of the discussed lenses) is not so much an issue.
When the 70-300mm L came out I thought it was overpriced for the fact that it is a slow lense - which doesn't matter so much for landscape though.

Probably the best thing really is to rent the 70-300 and try it.

Well, if you are mostly in the 200-300mm range, and when at 300mm it is not like you are wishing you had the 400mm option, the 70-300L should do it. If you must have f2.8 then go for the 70-200.

 

[neuroanatomist]

In your place, I'd get the 70-300L. I have both the 70-200/2.8L IS II and the 100-400L, both are excellent, but I'm considering getting the 70-300L as a travel telezoom.

 

[Jens_T]

Thank you all

 

[kirkcha]

I have been debating this same question for a while after switching to FF. I rented the 70-300L and the 70-200 f/4 IS last weekend and it was very beneficial to try both. Both had great IQ, maybe a very slight edge to the f/4 IS but I would be happy with either. For me I decided I could give up the reach to save weight (hiking), money and have f/4 at 200. I grabbed a refurbished f/4 from Canon, it will be here next week. The other reason I chose it is because my wife usually travels with me with a crop body if I need 300, which is only occasionally.

That being said if 200-300 is important, which it sounds like it might be, I would not hesitate to buy that lens. Weight felt very balanced on a 6D, compact, great IQ and loved the IS at 300. The only thing I didn't like was no tripod ring, which I would need.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The only thing I didn't like was no tripod ring, which I would need.

Just curious as to why you'd need a tripod ring for the 70-300L (and not the 70-200/4L?)...

Either way, Canon does sell tripod rings for both, and there are cheaper 3rd party options, although quality varies.

 

[Random Orbits]

Try out both the 70-200 II and the 70-300L if you can. Getting either is not necessarily wrong, but at least you will decide which of each lens' features are more appropriate to you.

Like a lot of others have suggested, the 70-300L does look like it will fit your requirements better: lighter and more compact. Being able to store the lens vertically in the bag saves a lot of space compared to laying it on its side and taking up the space of two lenses. The 70-200 II does take extenders better to get you to 400mm. For portraiture/action, the 70-200 II is hard to beat. With the 70-300L and its smaller max aperture, it does makes more sense to have a range of fast primes at 85 (which you have) and possibly at 135.

 

[kirkcha]

The only thing I didn't like was no tripod ring, which I would need.

Just curious as to why you'd need a tripod ring for the 70-300L (and not the 70-200/4L?)...

Either way, Canon does sell tripod rings for both, and there are cheaper 3rd party options, although quality varies.

Not saying I don't need on the 70-200 but I was able to manage without it much better than on the 70-300, I would have to have it with the added weight and length at 300.

Any recommendations on a 3rd party, Vello seems to be rated fairly high?

 

[Marsu42]

Just curious as to why you'd need a tripod ring for the 70-300L (and not the 70-200/4L?)...

I think Canon should have added it, esp. for this price ... I have got a China version which is very cheap and very sturdy (yes, both at the same time) since I figured out that shooting on tripod @300mm with the 70-300L doesn't work for longer exposure times w/o tripod ring.