Thinking about this but wanting your thoughts....

[HawkinsStu]

Hi There,

First time poster but been following for a little while now.

A little background, I've been an amateur photographer for a number of years now, first starting off with a 550d with the 18-55 and 55-250 kit lens which to me was a great starting point but then ended getting a 50mm 1.8 and 28 2.8 and getting good results when photographing my many fish tanks and reasonable results with cross country riding with the 55-250 in very good weather. Last year I ended up selling all the camera and the 2 kit lenses and purchasing the 70d and 18-135 STM lens. I mainly did this for the video and as a plus side, the photos were turning out better both on my primes for the fish and the 18-135 wasn't that bad at the sports side.

Now the thing I miss about my 1st setup was the reach of the 250 EF-S. The lens itself wasn't brilliant but I want to have something that range and the possibility of a little more reach if needed for wildlife. I was planning on going for the 100-400 replacement but this doesn't seem to be happening.... much to my announce.

So canon have kindly introduced a cashback offer for the 70-200 2.8 II with £210 off which got me thinking.

Not sure if I should go for this to use for everyday shouting (out and about/sports etc) giving me 112-320 on my 70d or do i wait for the 100-400 replacement?

If you advise to go for the 70-200mm II then what's the compatibility with teleconverters between this and the 70d? Its a dark art that I simply don't understand and get confused about but I was wondering if that could be my solution to get some extra reach.

Cheers
Stu

 

[AlanF]

Waiting for the 100-400 replacement is like waiting for Godot. Either buy the 70-200 or if you want 400mm and beyond the Tamron 150-600.

 

[Skatol]

The 70-200 w/the 1.4TC gives you a very nice 98-280mm F/4, The 2X bumps to a 140-400 F/5.6 with respectable results as well. If not opposed to primes check out the 400 F/5.6. This is much less expensive. The Tamron seems to be a popular alternative as well..

 

[rs]

Any lens which is compatible with extenders will physically work with any EF or EF-S mount body. However, if the resulting combo has an f8 max aperture (such as a 70-200/4 and 2x TC), it won't AF with most bodies.

The 70-200 II with a 1.4x TC gives you a 98-280/4 lens, which is equivalent to a 157-448/6.4 lens once the 1.6x crop is taken into account.

Likewise, with a 2x TC it's a 140-400/5.6, which is equivalent to a 224-640/9 lens when mounted on the 70D.

As for the quality, take a look at this for the quality on a 60D compared to your old 550D and 55-250 (actually a 50D):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=456&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

That's with the 1.4x TC wide open (one stop faster than the 55-250), and the 70D should yield better results than the 60D.

Here's with the 2x TC compared to the native lens, again on the 60D:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

As for the 100-400 II, some people have been waiting years for that. It might be the very next lens to be announced, but equally you could end up waiting another 5 years and see nothing...

 

[Vivid Color]

You might also want to consider Canon's 70-300 L. Mine worked beautifully on my crop body camera on my trip to Tanzania last year. Although you cannot use Canon extenders (at least not throughout the entire focal length range), I understand that you can use Kenko extenders on this lens. I should note that I have not used extenders on this lens.

 

[brad-man]

You might also want to consider Canon's 70-300 L. Mine worked beautifully on my crop body camera on my trip to Tanzania last year. Although you cannot use Canon extenders (at least not throughout the entire focal length range), I understand that you can use Kenko extenders on this lens. I should note that I have not used extenders on this lens.

+1 on the 70-300L. While the 70-200 & the (current) 100-400L are great lenses, they are considerably larger and heavier than your previous tele. The 70-300L will greatly improve your IQ and marginally improve your reach, all in a compact and easy to carry package with the latest image stabilization. If you can wait for a 20% off refurb sale from Canon, they can be had for around $1100.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

If you do not like the current 100-400mm, do not wait for an update that may take several years, or never appear. Canon 70-300mm L is a very versatile, high quality lens.

 

[pj1974]

You might also want to consider Canon's 70-300 L. Mine worked beautifully on my crop body camera on my trip to Tanzania last year. Although you cannot use Canon extenders (at least not throughout the entire focal length range), I understand that you can use Kenko extenders on this lens. I should note that I have not used extenders on this lens.

+1 on the 70-300L. While the 70-200 & the (current) 100-400L are great lenses, they are considerably larger and heavier than your previous tele. The 70-300L will greatly improve your IQ and marginally improve your reach, all in a compact and easy to carry package with the latest image stabilization. If you can wait for a 20% off refurb sale from Canon, they can be had for around $1100.

+1

I love my 70-300mm L. It's a great portable lens, with fantastic IQ at any setting. 70-300mm range on my crop really works well for me.

Sure it's not f/2.8, but in low light I use primes anyway - usually faster than f/2.8 (eg f/1.4 - f/2).
(Note the recently released EF-S 55-250 mm STM is a great bang for the buck lens, better than any other 55-200 / 55-250 lenses before it).

Can you please outline some more details of what you'll be photographing with a tele/telezoom lens?

Paul

 

[jdramirez]

I have the 70-200 mkii... and I'm quite fond of it... but you REALLY don't need the f/2.8 unless you are working in low light. F/4 is plenty good if you can control the lighting or are in decent lighting.

So if I had $2000 to spend, I'd probably lean you towards either the 70-200 f/4L IS which is every bit as sharp as the f/2.8L Is mkii... when at f/4 which is obviously the max aperture... or again... the 70-300L which is significantly better than the 55-250, the 70-300 USM, and the 55-250 stm.

Having said that... if you plan on doing video... can control the light... maybe the 55-250 for $250ish isn't a bad option. I buy them here and there and I sell them new on Amazon for around $270-280ish... The stm is sharper than the other Non L options, and it might do the trick until you figure out exactly what you want.

 

[expatinasia]

I do like the 70-300 L but rarely use it for some reason, and am even considering whether to sell it or not.

If I were you, and considering what you said in your first post, I would either go for the 70-200 f/2.8 is ii or possibly even the 300L f/4. The 70-200 is an excellent lens, and f/2.8 can be very useful.

 

[scottkinfw]

The 70-200 2.8L II is an excellent lens, and plays very well with the 1.4 III (my experience). I also have the f4L IS which is smaller and lighter. The 2.8 should do very well, but doesn't have the reach. 70-300 f4-5.6 L IS perhaps? Neuro loves his.

sek

Hi There,

First time poster but been following for a little while now.

A little background, I've been an amateur photographer for a number of years now, first starting off with a 550d with the 18-55 and 55-250 kit lens which to me was a great starting point but then ended getting a 50mm 1.8 and 28 2.8 and getting good results when photographing my many fish tanks and reasonable results with cross country riding with the 55-250 in very good weather. Last year I ended up selling all the camera and the 2 kit lenses and purchasing the 70d and 18-135 STM lens. I mainly did this for the video and as a plus side, the photos were turning out better both on my primes for the fish and the 18-135 wasn't that bad at the sports side.

Now the thing I miss about my 1st setup was the reach of the 250 EF-S. The lens itself wasn't brilliant but I want to have something that range and the possibility of a little more reach if needed for wildlife. I was planning on going for the 100-400 replacement but this doesn't seem to be happening.... much to my announce.

So canon have kindly introduced a cashback offer for the 70-200 2.8 II with £210 off which got me thinking.

Not sure if I should go for this to use for everyday shouting (out and about/sports etc) giving me 112-320 on my 70d or do i wait for the 100-400 replacement?

If you advise to go for the 70-200mm II then what's the compatibility with teleconverters between this and the 70d? Its a dark art that I simply don't understand and get confused about but I was wondering if that could be my solution to get some extra reach.

Cheers
Stu

 

[FTb-n]

Back when the 60D was my best camera, I invested in the 70-200 f2.8 II. I needed the speed for low light, indoor sports such as figure skating and basketball. The lens proved to be great for this purpose. I also used it for event photography -- school concerts, church events, etc. In short order, I added a 7D and a 17-55 2.8 and did more outdoor travel photography with both bodies and both lenses. All tolled, the 70-200 was my most used lens on these crop bodies. Today, I use two 5D3's and the 70-200 is still my most used lens.

My previous long lens was the 70-300 non-L. In my experience, cropping images from the 70-200 is sharper than the 70-300. I would expect that you will find the 70-200 very comparable to your 50-250 in usable range and a whole lot better in IQ.

Perhaps you don't "need" the 2.8, but it sure helps. I use the aperture that best serves the need, but I'm often isolated on a single subject. The 2.8 is great for this purpose. I typically use 2.8 most of the time. Granted, this shouldn't be a surprise because this is why I paid the extra dollars for this lens.

I highly recommend the 70-200 2.8 II.

 

[unfocused]

As others said, it all depends on your needs and wants.

If you really want a 100-400 "L" go ahead get it. There is no telling how long it will be before a replacement arrives and there is nothing wrong with this lens as it is. The next one will likely cost about twice as much, assuring that a market will remain for the current model, so you won't be risking that much.

Just realize that this is not a small lens. It's not a lens I want to carry around with me all day when traveling. But, if you want to shoot birds or wildlife from a distance, you need this lens.

For all-around travel, I don't believe anything can beat the 70-300 "L." It's the perfect second lens in a two-lens travel/walk around kit (coupled with a 15-85 EF-S for crop or a 24-105 "L" for full frame). It's relatively light and not huge. Generally, I want the extra 100mm of reach that it provides, and I tend to shoot outdoors, so I have taken a pass on the 70-200 zooms.

One additional thing I will say for the 70-300 "L" is that the IS is phenomenal. In a pinch, I've shot it (braced against something) as slow as 1/15 sec with acceptable results.

If I were an event or wedding photographer, or shot in mostly low light, I'd go with the 70-200 mm f2.8, but for me it just doesn't have enough reach. I do have the 200mm f2.8 "L" prime, which is small, relatively light and can give me the extra stops when I need them (if only it had IS).

Like the 100-400 "L," the 70-200 f2.8 is a substantial lens, which can be a consideration if you are carrying it around all day. And, if you are going to routinely couple it with a 2x converter, you're really not gaining anything over the 100-400 "L."

You owned the 55-250, which is in my view one of Canon's greatest bargain lenses. Probably even a better bargain than the 50mm f1.8 and close to the 85mm f1.8 in value for the dollar. It's not the most robust lens, but it is sharp, which is what counts in my book.

If you want something between the 55-250 EF-S and the 70-300 "L," then consider the Tamron 70-300. It's better than the Canon non-Ls. Not quite as good at the 70-300 "L" but certainly not bad and for the money it's very good. The Tamron is about equal to the 55-250 EF-S in sharpness, which is to say it is very good.

I realized as I writing this that I own or have owned too many lenses.

 

[EricFiskCGD]

I realized as I writing this that I own or have owned too many lenses.

No such thing... in my opinion only.

As for the topic at hand - my rule of thumb is simple, if you want the lens and you have the money and you want the lens (and it will work with your camera!) then just get it. The only thing worse than buying something and just returning it or selling it to another Canon Aficionado is going through the agony of "should have, would have, could have's."

 

[dickgrafixstop]

You talk about taking the telephoto on your bike, so I'd guess the faster lens is of marginal use for most cases.
I'd narrow the choice to the 70-200 f4.0 or the 70-300. Difference is about $300 which would almost get you
a 1.4 extender. My choice would be the longer reach, slightly more weight penalty but an excellent and versatile
lens. If you really want reach there are several other manufacturers - Sigma and Tamron - which make good
long telephoto zooms (up to 600mm) at less than $1000.

 

[sdsr]

Only you know whether you really need 2.8; if you don't, I would echo the recommendations for the 70-300L (probably the Canon lens I use the most) or 70-200 f4 IS L - both are far easier to carry around than the 70-200 2.8 II (the 70-200 f4 is lighter than the 70-300L, though not by a lot) and are mechanically and optically superb. Or you may want to try the latest 55-250 before jumping in - the superiority of the Ls is much less obvious on APSC than FF. (I have no idea, however, how any of these compare in terms of usefulness for video.)

 

[Hector1970]

Best of luck in your search for the right lens. The only thing I would say is I think the 70-200 II F2.8 is the best of all Canons zoom lens. It creates beautiful photograph. It locks on focus very fast. It's very adaptable to sport , portraits and even landscapes. Other than the cost you'd never regret buying it. I use the canon 1.4 and the Kenko 2x converters. Still good but maybe some of the magic disappears. Probably for what you are planning the existing 100-400 is good enough.

 

[HawkinsStu]

First off, wow thank you all for your responses and suggestions.

Its interesting to see what's worth looking into and what peoples experiences are. I first read a couple of reviews about the 70-300L and was a little put off when they suggest its a "sunny weather" lens.

Hence why I was looking at the 70-200 2.8 ii with £210 cashback because most of the time in Britain its usually cloudy so wanted something pretty quick in questionable weather for the cross country riding that I could kinda use for wildlife if I wanted.

So just for clarification, if I went down the route of the 2.8ii would the autofocus would work with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters because the lens itself wont be >F8?

Granted I expect the AF to be much slower and the IQ to be softer with the 2x. Just thinking the 1.4x would give me 448mm and the 2x could give me 640mm for those days where I was looking for birds. If I did go down the 2.8 ii I would go for the 1.4 teleconverter.

Cheers
Stu

 

[CarlTN]

Hi There,

First time poster but been following for a little while now.

A little background, I've been an amateur photographer for a number of years now, first starting off with a 550d with the 18-55 and 55-250 kit lens which to me was a great starting point but then ended getting a 50mm 1.8 and 28 2.8 and getting good results when photographing my many fish tanks and reasonable results with cross country riding with the 55-250 in very good weather. Last year I ended up selling all the camera and the 2 kit lenses and purchasing the 70d and 18-135 STM lens. I mainly did this for the video and as a plus side, the photos were turning out better both on my primes for the fish and the 18-135 wasn't that bad at the sports side.

Now the thing I miss about my 1st setup was the reach of the 250 EF-S. The lens itself wasn't brilliant but I want to have something that range and the possibility of a little more reach if needed for wildlife. I was planning on going for the 100-400 replacement but this doesn't seem to be happening.... much to my announce.

So canon have kindly introduced a cashback offer for the 70-200 2.8 II with £210 off which got me thinking.

Not sure if I should go for this to use for everyday shouting (out and about/sports etc) giving me 112-320 on my 70d or do i wait for the 100-400 replacement?

If you advise to go for the 70-200mm II then what's the compatibility with teleconverters between this and the 70d? Its a dark art that I simply don't understand and get confused about but I was wondering if that could be my solution to get some extra reach.

Cheers
Stu

You should consider the 70-300L. I don't understand why you are only considering the 70-200 f/2.8, or waiting on the 100-400 replacement. Neither is going to be ideal for your use scenario, but the 70-300L just might be. Most everyone on CR thinks we all should use the 70-200 f/2.8 most of the time, but I disagree.

 

[dgatwood]

You should consider the 70-300L. I don't understand why you are only considering the 70-200 f/2.8, or waiting on the 100-400 replacement. Neither is going to be ideal for your use scenario, but the 70-300L just might be. Most everyone on CR thinks we all should use the 70-200 f/2.8 most of the time, but I disagree.

Hear, hear. The 70-300L is a fine lens. There are rare occasions when I'd kill for it to be f/2.8, but those mostly involve situations where I'm strapping on a 3x TC because 300 isn't long enough, so....