# Thinking about this but wanting your thoughts....



## HawkinsStu (Mar 17, 2014)

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 (Mar 17, 2014)

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 (Mar 17, 2014)

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 (Mar 17, 2014)

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 (Mar 17, 2014)

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 (Mar 18, 2014)

Vivid Color said:


> 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 (Mar 18, 2014)

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 (Mar 18, 2014)

brad-man said:


> Vivid Color said:
> 
> 
> > 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

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 (Mar 18, 2014)

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 (Mar 18, 2014)

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 (Mar 18, 2014)

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



HawkinsStu said:


> Hi There,
> 
> First time poster but been following for a little while now.
> 
> ...


----------



## FTb-n (Mar 18, 2014)

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 (Mar 18, 2014)

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 (Mar 18, 2014)

unfocused said:


> 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 (Mar 18, 2014)

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 (Mar 18, 2014)

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 (Mar 18, 2014)

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 (Mar 18, 2014)

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 (Mar 18, 2014)

HawkinsStu said:


> Hi There,
> 
> First time poster but been following for a little while now.
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 18, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> 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....


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 19, 2014)

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 (Mar 19, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> 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 (Mar 19, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> 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 (Mar 20, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> 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 (Mar 21, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 21, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Mar 21, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



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 (Mar 21, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...



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 (Mar 21, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> 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 (Mar 21, 2014)

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 (Mar 21, 2014)

HawkinsStu said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 21, 2014)

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 (Mar 21, 2014)

HawkinsStu said:


> Hi There,
> 
> First time poster but been following for a little while now.
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 22, 2014)

saveyourmoment said:


> 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
> ...



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 (Mar 23, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 24, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



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



expatinasia said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 24, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...



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 (Mar 24, 2014)

HawkinsStu said:


> 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 (Mar 24, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> 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 (Mar 24, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> 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.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 25, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Thanks to eBay and websites like it, it shouldn't matter what part of the world you're in.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 25, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...



Do you think this will be the year the 100-400 gets replaced? And if so, will it be an 80-400 or similar, like Nikon did?


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 25, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Do you think this will be the year the 100-400 gets replaced? And if so, will it be an 80-400 or similar, like Nikon did?



I would like to think so, but I'm not holding my breadth. It's time to replace it. According to AlanF and others in this forum, the Tamron can do as well as the 100-400L at 400mm. I woud expect the 100-400L replacement to do significantly better at 400mm, and depending on how much better it is, it could bring up the debate as to which is better: upres-ing the 100-400L II or using the Tamron at a longer focal length. And if Canon could do that, then the 100-400L II will be a winner: better AF, better IQ and significantly smaller and lighter. Even if the 100-400L replacement comes out this year, I'd probably wait until next Christmas when the prices soften a bit.

The 100-400mm range is fine as long as the IQ is high. According to TDP crops, the Nikon 80-400 softens significantly from 300 to 400mm. I'd much rather have a smaller zoom range and better IQ at the long end. That and f/4.5 at 80 or 100mm isn't all that exciting either.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 25, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think this will be the year the 100-400 gets replaced? And if so, will it be an 80-400 or similar, like Nikon did?
> ...



I agree. I like my Sigma 120-400, especially for the price (I plan to sell it because I also bought the 70-300L...it has even more uses for me). I feel this Sigma is a better buy than the current 100-400 Canon. 120 is not quite as wide as 100, but it's far wider than 150mm. It's also half a pound lighter than the Tamron 150-600 (and about $200 less costly). So if you don't need 600mm, I feel it's a decent choice. If you need 600 and don't need wider than 150, the Tamron is likely better overall...a clear winner even. From the pictures I've seen online, the Tamron has better background bokeh than either the Canon 100-400 or this Sigma 120-400...but it's still not as good as the Canon 70-300L. I can't believe how smooth its bokeh is at all focal lengths. And its contrast is mind-blowing, for a zoom, in my opinion.


----------

