Thinking about this but wanting your thoughts....

[Random Orbits]

If I could only have one, I'd choose the 70-200L II. Bare lens, its AF is better than the 70-300L and 100-400L. With a 1.4x, it's IQ is similar to the 70-300L and it's a stop faster (f/4 at 280mm vs. f/5.6 at 300mm) than the 100-300L. Better for portraits, sports, etc. Yes, it weighs more, costs more and is physically longer than the 70-300L (in locked position) but it is that good.

However, if you plan on using it outside and/or for travel, then the 70-300L is also very good choice. It stores more compactly and is less awkward to handle than the 70-200L II + 1.4x, but losing at least a stop hurts when shooting sports/shows indoors.

If you can, try them both in a store and see if the weight/handling difference matters to you. I use the 70-300L when visiting places like the zoos or for daytrips. For everything else, the 70-200L II is the choice.

 

[CarlTN]

If I could only have one, I'd choose the 70-200L II. Bare lens, its AF is better than the 70-300L and 100-400L. With a 1.4x, it's IQ is similar to the 70-300L and it's a stop faster (f/4 at 280mm vs. f/5.6 at 300mm) than the 100-300L. Better for portraits, sports, etc. Yes, it weighs more, costs more and is physically longer than the 70-300L (in locked position) but it is that good.

However, if you plan on using it outside and/or for travel, then the 70-300L is also very good choice. It stores more compactly and is less awkward to handle than the 70-200L II + 1.4x, but losing at least a stop hurts when shooting sports/shows indoors.

If you can, try them both in a store and see if the weight/handling difference matters to you. I use the 70-300L when visiting places like the zoos or for daytrips. For everything else, the 70-200L II is the choice.

The problem with using the 1.4x TC is that the 70-200 becomes a 100-280 f/4...limited a bit at each end, certainly not any sharper (and I say less sharp) than the bare 70-300L. If he's using it on a crop camera like the 70D, it's really more like 140mm at the wide end. I personally find that when I am using a zoom, I use it all over the range, and not just at the long end. It's really just a pricey lens that is not all that useful as a walkaround, it's more of a status symbol. You want to feel like you're a pro photo journalist, so you buy what they use. But they aren't shooting wildlife or anything at an extreme distance. Rather they are trying to get as close as they can, and when they can't get close enough, they can go out to 200mm. It's really better for close range portraiture, than for wildlife, in my opinion. Another plus for the 70-300L, is it is actually f/5 up to 220mm, so it's not that much slower than f/4. It's also f/4 up to 100mm, and f/4.5 up to 150 or 160mm. It autofocuses pretty fast, I doubt it is much slower, if any, than the 70-200 f/2.8 ii, with a 1.4x iii on it. The 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) that I had for 4 years, autofocused a bit faster, but it wasn't a huge difference. The body you're using it on makes more difference, regarding the AF speed.

 

[Random Orbits]

The problem with using the 1.4x TC is that the 70-200 becomes a 100-280 f/4...limited a bit at each end, certainly not any sharper (and I say less sharp) than the bare 70-300L. If he's using it on a crop camera like the 70D, it's really more like 140mm at the wide end. I personally find that when I am using a zoom, I use it all over the range, and not just at the long end. It's really just a pricey lens that is not all that useful as a walkaround, it's more of a status symbol. You want to feel like you're a pro photo journalist, so you buy what they use. But they aren't shooting wildlife or anything at an extreme distance. Rather they are trying to get as close as they can, and when they can't get close enough, they can go out to 200mm. It's really better for close range portraiture, than for wildlife, in my opinion. Another plus for the 70-300L, is it is actually f/5 up to 220mm, so it's not that much slower than f/4. It's also f/4 up to 100mm, and f/4.5 up to 150 or 160mm. It autofocuses pretty fast, I doubt it is much slower, if any, than the 70-200 f/2.8 ii, with a 1.4x iii on it. The 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) that I had for 4 years, autofocused a bit faster, but it wasn't a huge difference. The body you're using it on makes more difference, regarding the AF speed.

The 70-200L II can also take a 2x and still AF. You can stick a Canon 1.4x III on the 70-300L but the OP won't be able to AF (f/8 on the 70D) and he won't be able to use much of the shorter range either because the rear element of the 70-300L interferes with the TC. The kenko TC is an option, but then you can't AFMA else you might lock it up. The 70-200L II is a lens of choice if weight and cost are not issues. It's a superlative portrait lens and is easier to use indoors because it is f/2.8 and gets you to comparable IQ to the 70-300L near 300mm while being a stop faster, and can get you to 400mm with slightly worse IQ (albeit slower AF) than the 100-400.

I used both the 70-200L II and the 70-300L on a 7D, 5D II and a 5D III. Servo AF is much better with the 70-200L II (same body). The smaller max aperture of the 70-300L also causes it to fail to lock in one shot AF as well. Tried taking a shot of a wet seal on bright sunny day, and the AF would not lock on the seal with the 70-300L. Had to lock on something at the same distance instead. The 70-200L II can use the more sensitive AF baselines, and it mattered in that case.

 

[expatinasia]

The 70-200L II can also take a 2x and still AF. You can stick a Canon 1.4x III on the 70-300L but the OP won't be able to AF (f/8 on the 70D) and he won't be able to use much of the shorter range either because the rear element of the 70-300L interferes with the TC. The kenko TC is an option, but then you can't AFMA else you might lock it up.

This is why I recommended the 70-200 L ii or the 300 f/4.0 IS. The latter gives you that little extra reach with a 1.4X without much loss of IQ and can even take a 2X.

 

[CarlTN]

The problem with using the 1.4x TC is that the 70-200 becomes a 100-280 f/4...limited a bit at each end, certainly not any sharper (and I say less sharp) than the bare 70-300L. If he's using it on a crop camera like the 70D, it's really more like 140mm at the wide end. I personally find that when I am using a zoom, I use it all over the range, and not just at the long end. It's really just a pricey lens that is not all that useful as a walkaround, it's more of a status symbol. You want to feel like you're a pro photo journalist, so you buy what they use. But they aren't shooting wildlife or anything at an extreme distance. Rather they are trying to get as close as they can, and when they can't get close enough, they can go out to 200mm. It's really better for close range portraiture, than for wildlife, in my opinion. Another plus for the 70-300L, is it is actually f/5 up to 220mm, so it's not that much slower than f/4. It's also f/4 up to 100mm, and f/4.5 up to 150 or 160mm. It autofocuses pretty fast, I doubt it is much slower, if any, than the 70-200 f/2.8 ii, with a 1.4x iii on it. The 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) that I had for 4 years, autofocused a bit faster, but it wasn't a huge difference. The body you're using it on makes more difference, regarding the AF speed.

The 70-200L II can also take a 2x and still AF. You can stick a Canon 1.4x III on the 70-300L but the OP won't be able to AF (f/8 on the 70D) and he won't be able to use much of the shorter range either because the rear element of the 70-300L interferes with the TC. The kenko TC is an option, but then you can't AFMA else you might lock it up. The 70-200L II is a lens of choice if weight and cost are not issues. It's a superlative portrait lens and is easier to use indoors because it is f/2.8 and gets you to comparable IQ to the 70-300L near 300mm while being a stop faster, and can get you to 400mm with slightly worse IQ (albeit slower AF) than the 100-400.

I used both the 70-200L II and the 70-300L on a 7D, 5D II and a 5D III. Servo AF is much better with the 70-200L II (same body). The smaller max aperture of the 70-300L also causes it to fail to lock in one shot AF as well. Tried taking a shot of a wet seal on bright sunny day, and the AF would not lock on the seal with the 70-300L. Had to lock on something at the same distance instead. The 70-200L II can use the more sensitive AF baselines, and it mattered in that case.

True enough, but you now you are reverting to comparing the bare 70-200 to the bare 70-300...and that's not what we were initially discussing. And the bare 70-200, still only gets you to 200mm. As for using the 2x TC, even the version 3...that's a total waste of time, and no reason to buy a 70-200 f/2.8 ii, in my opinion. My point was and is, the 70-200 is fine if you need the bare lens. Less so if you put the 1.4x iii on it. As for not getting focus lock with the 70-300L, that can vary with light and the subject, and distance. I've found it doesn't lock very well if the distance is greater than say 200 feet at 300mm, especially in low light. But as for using it at the wide end in low light...it will lock very fast, especially if subject distance is closer than 100 feet. Sure f/2.8 has an advantage for low light, but then so does F/2. I'd rather have a 200 f/2 for low light, than a 70-200 f/2.8. I'd also rather have a 300 f/2.8 in place of all of these. If you add the cost of all of them together (the 70-200, the 70-300, and the 200 f/2)...then the 300 f/2.8 ii is cheaper. I still can't afford it, but if I could, I would buy it and not own the others...at least for a while.

 

[CarlTN]

The 70-200L II can also take a 2x and still AF. You can stick a Canon 1.4x III on the 70-300L but the OP won't be able to AF (f/8 on the 70D) and he won't be able to use much of the shorter range either because the rear element of the 70-300L interferes with the TC. The kenko TC is an option, but then you can't AFMA else you might lock it up.

This is why I recommended the 70-200 L ii or the 300 f/4.0 IS. The latter gives you that little extra reach with a 1.4X without much loss of IQ and can even take a 2X.

The 300 f/4L with 2x TC, is actually quite terrible looking. It's also native f/8, so not able to be used on anything other than modded 5D3 or 1DX (at present anyway).

 

[expatinasia]

The 70-200L II can also take a 2x and still AF. You can stick a Canon 1.4x III on the 70-300L but the OP won't be able to AF (f/8 on the 70D) and he won't be able to use much of the shorter range either because the rear element of the 70-300L interferes with the TC. The kenko TC is an option, but then you can't AFMA else you might lock it up.

This is why I recommended the 70-200 L ii or the 300 f/4.0 IS. The latter gives you that little extra reach with a 1.4X without much loss of IQ and can even take a 2X.

The 300 f/4L with 2x TC, is actually quite terrible looking. It's also native f/8, so not able to be used on anything other than modded 5D3 or 1DX (at present anyway).

The 5D Mark III does not need to be modified for it to AF at f/8.0 and AF at f/8.0 works on all 1 bodies. Here is a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Extender_EF#List_of_EOS_bodies_that_can_AF_at_f.2F8

I agree that it is not an ideal 600 but 300 f/4.0 and 420 at f/5.6 is pretty good and excellent value for money. And it can still be used at 600 with a 2X TC if you want to.

In fact a guest last year posted two very interesting pictures in the lens gallery section. One was with the 300 f/2.8 IS ii with 2X TC and the other image of the same subject with the 300 f/4.0 IS with 2X TC. It is a perfect example of just how good that lens is, as it does suffer with the 2X but the images are still more than ok. Both images are 5616 x 3744 so you can see all the detail. You can see the images half way down the page here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=2662.15

When you look at those two images, remember the f/4.0 costs US$ 1,300 -1,500 ish and the f/2.8 closer to US$7,000. There is absolutely no question that the 2.8 is the better lens, but for value for money it is hard to beat the f/4.

Incidentally I just looked at the exif data which is still there and the camera used was a 5D Mark II which is why he/she manually focussed I guess on the f/4.0.

It does not say which version of TC was used.

 

[CarlTN]

The 70-200L II can also take a 2x and still AF. You can stick a Canon 1.4x III on the 70-300L but the OP won't be able to AF (f/8 on the 70D) and he won't be able to use much of the shorter range either because the rear element of the 70-300L interferes with the TC. The kenko TC is an option, but then you can't AFMA else you might lock it up.

This is why I recommended the 70-200 L ii or the 300 f/4.0 IS. The latter gives you that little extra reach with a 1.4X without much loss of IQ and can even take a 2X.

The 300 f/4L with 2x TC, is actually quite terrible looking. It's also native f/8, so not able to be used on anything other than modded 5D3 or 1DX (at present anyway).

The 5D Mark III does not need to be modified for it to AF at f/8.0 and AF at f/8.0 works on all 1 bodies. Here is a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Extender_EF#List_of_EOS_bodies_that_can_AF_at_f.2F8

I agree that it is not an ideal 600 but 300 f/4.0 and 420 at f/5.6 is pretty good and excellent value for money. And it can still be used at 600 with a 2X TC if you want to.

In fact a guest last year posted two very interesting pictures in the lens gallery section. One was with the 300 f/2.8 IS ii with 2X TC and the other image of the same subject with the 300 f/4.0 IS with 2X TC. It is a perfect example of just how good that lens is, as it does suffer with the 2X but the images are still more than ok. Both images are 5616 x 3744 so you can see all the detail. You can see the images half way down the page here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=2662.15

When you look at those two images, remember the f/4.0 costs US$ 1,300 -1,500 ish and the f/2.8 closer to US$7,000. There is absolutely no question that the 2.8 is the better lens, but for value for money it is hard to beat the f/4.

Incidentally I just looked at the exif data which is still there and the camera used was a 5D Mark II which is why he/she manually focussed I guess on the f/4.0.

It does not say which version of TC was used.

I've rented the 300 f/4L, and posted images of it with the 2x ii extender, shot with a 1D4. So it's not like I don't have experience with it. My cousin also bought one and uses it with a 1.4x on his 1DX. It was usable in a pinch, but very terrible looking outside the middle 10% of the image, with the 2x ii. I realize the extender iii is better, but not remotely enough to argue in favor of its use on this lens, in my opinion. I mean, the 2x extender iii, on the 300 f/2.8 ii, is only BARELY better than the new Tamron 150-600, at 600mm, if it is closed to f/8. So if you want to argue economics, just buy a Tamron.

 

[expatinasia]

I've rented the 300 f/4L, and posted images of it with the 2x ii extender, shot with a 1D4. So it's not like I don't have experience with it. My cousin also bought one and uses it with a 1.4x on his 1DX. It was usable in a pinch, but very terrible looking outside the middle 10% of the image, with the 2x ii. I realize the extender iii is better, but not remotely enough to argue in favor of its use on this lens, in my opinion. I mean, the 2x extender iii, on the 300 f/2.8 ii, is only BARELY better than the new Tamron 150-600, at 600mm, if it is closed to f/8. So if you want to argue economics, just buy a Tamron.

I think my point was more about the lens being a good 300 at f/4.0 and 420 at f/5.6. I do not think people buy that lens thinking too much about 600, the main reason is the 300 and 420 at a reasonable price. At those lengths it is a very good lens for the money, and I would prefer it to the 70-300L. It has its pros and cons, one pro is Canon TCs will work with the 300 but not (properly at all lengths) with the 70-300, another is that little bit of extra light.

 

[saveyourmoment]

i had have got the same "problem". At the end, i didn't want to wait, i wanted to shoot, so i got the 70-200II 2.8 and i got the tc 1.4T III and the 2xIII.
now i have an incredible lense in the range of 70-200 for great portraits and great sportpics. when i want a little more reach, i use the 1.4TC so the image quality isn't that much difference, but i got the 80mm moe reach(and f4). And when i have to get in really close, i use the 2xIII to get the 400mm(at5.6). The quality of the 400mm pics are about the same as the ones of the 100-400. of course not as sharp as primes or the 70-200 without tc, but really usable!

look inside this thread(at the end): http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4624.msg283481#msg283481

all using on a 5diii

 

[Random Orbits]

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

Yes, with the 70-200L IS II, the max aperture will be f/5.6 with a 2x TC, so it will AF on your camera. With the 2x, the AF will be significantly slower than the 100-400L and the IQ will be just a bit behind the 100-400L (just remember to AFMA your TC + lens combo). It will replace your 18-135 for field sports (where there is enough space). With TCs, it'll give you more reach than the EFS 55-250, but probably not enough for birds if that is what you primarily need the reach for.

If you need a lens for birding more than sports, then it's probably better to look into the Tamron 150-600.

 

[wickidwombat]

the tamrons AF performance utterly kills the 70-200 + 2XTC mk3 and i'm comparing the weak af @ 600 vs the 400 of the other combo if you put the tamron at 400 its better again. however IQ of the 70-200 +2X TC still holds up very well
so it depends how much the AF means to you

the 300f4L +1.4TC is a really brilliant combo too to get 420mm f5.6 but with the 2X it has a noticable loss in IQ but if you stop down to f11 it improves alot

 

[wsmith96]

Hi There,

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

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

I would recommend the 70-200 2.8 Mk II with the teleconverters. I've used the 1.4 III with great results. I'm not sure about IQ with the 2.0III converter, but yes it should auto focus on your 70D.

As earlier mentioned - pair that with a 17-55 F2.8 and you've got a great kit for aps-c.

Regards,

Wes

 

[HawkinsStu]

i had have got the same "problem". At the end, i didn't want to wait, i wanted to shoot, so i got the 70-200II 2.8 and i got the tc 1.4T III and the 2xIII.
now i have an incredible lense in the range of 70-200 for great portraits and great sportpics. when i want a little more reach, i use the 1.4TC so the image quality isn't that much difference, but i got the 80mm moe reach(and f4). And when i have to get in really close, i use the 2xIII to get the 400mm(at5.6). The quality of the 400mm pics are about the same as the ones of the 100-400. of course not as sharp as primes or the 70-200 without tc, but really usable!

look inside this thread(at the end): http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4624.msg283481#msg283481

all using on a 5diii

To some peoples annoyance i think you have just made my mind up to go with the 70-200.

However now I don't know which teleconverter to go for.

The 5D III is simply much better than my 70d so i cant expect to see results like that with the 2x so I may just go the 1.4 to give me 448mm equivalent or shall I go for the 2x?

 

[CarlTN]

I've rented the 300 f/4L, and posted images of it with the 2x ii extender, shot with a 1D4. So it's not like I don't have experience with it. My cousin also bought one and uses it with a 1.4x on his 1DX. It was usable in a pinch, but very terrible looking outside the middle 10% of the image, with the 2x ii. I realize the extender iii is better, but not remotely enough to argue in favor of its use on this lens, in my opinion. I mean, the 2x extender iii, on the 300 f/2.8 ii, is only BARELY better than the new Tamron 150-600, at 600mm, if it is closed to f/8. So if you want to argue economics, just buy a Tamron.

I think my point was more about the lens being a good 300 at f/4.0 and 420 at f/5.6. I do not think people buy that lens thinking too much about 600, the main reason is the 300 and 420 at a reasonable price. At those lengths it is a very good lens for the money, and I would prefer it to the 70-300L. It has its pros and cons, one pro is Canon TCs will work with the 300 but not (properly at all lengths) with the 70-300, another is that little bit of extra light.

Well, that's not what you said, though. You were talking about the 2x TC. Now you're changing the subject a bit.

The 70-300L is a wide range zoom though, so to each their own. You can't take a 70mm shot one second, and a 300mm the next...with the 300mm f/4 (or especially being able to zoom while tracking something coming toward or going away from you...can't do that with a prime lens). The IQ at 300mm is just not that much better, either. Sure it gives some lower ISO capability, but with the 6D, I'm very comfortable using it in post sunset conditions. In pre-sunset conditions I can comfortably get 1/2500 second exposure at 300mm f/5.6 if I want to, and still have plenty of dynamic range and low noise.

Also, the bokeh smoothness is every bit as good on the 70-300L, as on the 300 f/4L.

I admit servo tracking in such very low light (with the 6D), would be more of an advantage with the f/4 lens, moreso than ultimate image quality when not servo tracking. But servo tracking is not very reliable on any body with any lens, in very low light (I'm talking light levels a bit brighter than ambient full moonlight at midnight, but not by much.)

You don't buy the 70-300L to be primarily used with any TC. If you do, you will be disappointed...so that was not really part of my original point. It's designed to work best, given its max aperture, without one. You buy a zoom, to use at all its focal length range, and not just the long end. I use mine everywhere in its range...as I do my 120-400 Sigma lens.

 

[expatinasia]

I've rented the 300 f/4L, and posted images of it with the 2x ii extender, shot with a 1D4. So it's not like I don't have experience with it. My cousin also bought one and uses it with a 1.4x on his 1DX. It was usable in a pinch, but very terrible looking outside the middle 10% of the image, with the 2x ii. I realize the extender iii is better, but not remotely enough to argue in favor of its use on this lens, in my opinion. I mean, the 2x extender iii, on the 300 f/2.8 ii, is only BARELY better than the new Tamron 150-600, at 600mm, if it is closed to f/8. So if you want to argue economics, just buy a Tamron.

I think my point was more about the lens being a good 300 at f/4.0 and 420 at f/5.6. I do not think people buy that lens thinking too much about 600, the main reason is the 300 and 420 at a reasonable price. At those lengths it is a very good lens for the money, and I would prefer it to the 70-300L. It has its pros and cons, one pro is Canon TCs will work with the 300 but not (properly at all lengths) with the 70-300, another is that little bit of extra light.

Well, that's not what you said, though. You were talking about the 2x TC. Now you're changing the subject a bit.

Just for the record this is what I said - prior to that post you quote:

The 70-200L II can also take a 2x and still AF. You can stick a Canon 1.4x III on the 70-300L but the OP won't be able to AF (f/8 on the 70D) and he won't be able to use much of the shorter range either because the rear element of the 70-300L interferes with the TC. The kenko TC is an option, but then you can't AFMA else you might lock it up.

This is why I recommended the 70-200 L ii or the 300 f/4.0 IS. The latter gives you that little extra reach with a 1.4X without much loss of IQ and can even take a 2X.

Anyway, that is the great thing about opinions - everyone has one and everyone is entitled to one. Maybe I should get my 70-300L out again and mess around with it, but to be honest I think I would prefer to sell it as I have not used it in such a long time.

 

[CarlTN]

I've rented the 300 f/4L, and posted images of it with the 2x ii extender, shot with a 1D4. So it's not like I don't have experience with it. My cousin also bought one and uses it with a 1.4x on his 1DX. It was usable in a pinch, but very terrible looking outside the middle 10% of the image, with the 2x ii. I realize the extender iii is better, but not remotely enough to argue in favor of its use on this lens, in my opinion. I mean, the 2x extender iii, on the 300 f/2.8 ii, is only BARELY better than the new Tamron 150-600, at 600mm, if it is closed to f/8. So if you want to argue economics, just buy a Tamron.

I think my point was more about the lens being a good 300 at f/4.0 and 420 at f/5.6. I do not think people buy that lens thinking too much about 600, the main reason is the 300 and 420 at a reasonable price. At those lengths it is a very good lens for the money, and I would prefer it to the 70-300L. It has its pros and cons, one pro is Canon TCs will work with the 300 but not (properly at all lengths) with the 70-300, another is that little bit of extra light.

Well, that's not what you said, though. You were talking about the 2x TC. Now you're changing the subject a bit.

Just for the record this is what I said - prior to that post you quote:

The 70-200L II can also take a 2x and still AF. You can stick a Canon 1.4x III on the 70-300L but the OP won't be able to AF (f/8 on the 70D) and he won't be able to use much of the shorter range either because the rear element of the 70-300L interferes with the TC. The kenko TC is an option, but then you can't AFMA else you might lock it up.

This is why I recommended the 70-200 L ii or the 300 f/4.0 IS. The latter gives you that little extra reach with a 1.4X without much loss of IQ and can even take a 2X.

Anyway, that is the great thing about opinions - everyone has one and everyone is entitled to one. Maybe I should get my 70-300L out again and mess around with it, but to be honest I think I would prefer to sell it as I have not used it in such a long time.

So I got your quote mixed up with random orbits, but you're both saying similar things...my mistake though. In any case, to have the 70-300L and never use it, makes zero sense to me. You should definitely sell it to someone who will use it.

 

[saveyourmoment]

To some peoples annoyance i think you have just made my mind up to go with the 70-200.

However now I don't know which teleconverter to go for.

The 5D III is simply much better than my 70d so i cant expect to see results like that with the 2x so I may just go the 1.4 to give me 448mm equivalent or shall I go for the 2x?

i would go for the 1.4TC III on a Crop. 448mm is quite "enough" for most sports.

 

[expatinasia]

So I got your quote mixed up with random orbits, but you're both saying similar things...my mistake though. In any case, to have the 70-300L and never use it, makes zero sense to me. You should definitely sell it to someone who will use it.

Yes, but I live in a part of the world where second hand (used) is not quite as appreciated. Even if the lens in question is mint. That, and I have never tried to sell anything second hand here. I started a thread about it here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20156.0

Not sure what I will do with it, but for now it just sits in a case in a cabinet.

 

[Random Orbits]

Yes, but I live in a part of the world where second hand (used) is not quite as appreciated. Even if the lens in question is mint. That, and I have never tried to sell anything second hand here. I started a thread about it here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20156.0

Not sure what I will do with it, but for now it just sits in a case in a cabinet.

I like the 70-300L for travel because it's lighter/more compact than the other options (70-200 or 100-400). I picked up a used 100-400L, and between the 70-200L II, 70-300L and 100-400L, I'm guessing that it'll be 100-400L that gets sold.