# Input on Lens Decision



## MacroBug (Feb 18, 2013)

Since I upgraded to FF I'm not shooting much at longer focal lengths and rarely use my 300L or 1.4 teleconverter. I shoot some portaits, macro and am doing more landscapes. Here's my current equipment list:

5DII
24-105L
50 1.4
70-200 f4L IS
100L
135L
300 f4L 
1.4X III Extender

I'm considering selling the 70-200L, 300L and 1.4 extender to buy a 70-300L. This would allow coverage of longer focal lengths with less equipment. I don't think I'd miss the constant f4 and I rarely shoot over 300mm. I'd have some money left over to possibly put towards a UWA, since I am shooting more landscapes.

Appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks,

Craig


----------



## untitled10 (Feb 18, 2013)

MacroBug said:


> Since I upgraded to FF I'm not shooting much at longer focal lengths and rarely use my 300L or 1.4 teleconverter. I shoot some portaits, macro and am doing more landscapes. Here's my current equipment list:
> 
> 5DII
> 24-105L
> ...



I get along quite nicely with just 135 on full frame at the longist, you considered getting a really nice wide angle and no 70-300?


----------



## AudioGlenn (Feb 18, 2013)

I find zooms to be more "convenient" for casual shooting. Primes are nice but against my set of lenses, I don't feel the need to buy every single L prime lens anymore. Lately, for casual shooting, I've been trying to discipline myself by carrying only 1 or 2 lenses at most and making it work with what I have on hand. 

In short, yes, I say slim down your kit to what you absolutely need. It look like you can use an ultra wide angle lens in your kit. Also, the 24-105 might pair up nicely with the 100-400 instead of the 70-300.


----------



## ahab1372 (Feb 18, 2013)

The 70-300 L is a great lens. You loose one stop over the 300 prime, less than a stop in the 200 range over the 70-200, but gain room in your gear bag and versatility without changing lenses. 
IQ and AF is on par with the 70-200. It is an extending zoom, but it is shorter when retracted. It is also a little thicker. Built quality is great. 

I think it totally makes sense if you don't need more than 300mm. If you find out that you do occasionally, you can still rent, or get a Kenko Teleconverter.


----------



## ahab1372 (Feb 18, 2013)

And if you find that 200mm is long enough most of the time, just sell the 300 and keep the converter and the 70-200


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 18, 2013)

Sell those redundant lenses and get the 70-300L. It makes sense in your kit.

24-105 + 70-300L + 50mm Would be a great GP kit.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 18, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> And if you find that 200mm is long enough most of the time, just sell the 300 and keep the converter and the 70-200


I guess the question is why deal with the converter? You either have to leave it on at all times (thus really owning a 100-280 f/5.6 lens) or be swapping it on and off. Going with the 70-300L, the only thing you really lose is about 1/3 stop from 100-200mm...and you gain 70mm f/4 or 300mm f/5.6 with no swapping.

Only reason not to trade out the 70-200 would be if you do video work.


----------



## MacroBug (Feb 18, 2013)

Thanks for the input everyone. I don't want to rely on the extender as it is not convenient so I tend not to use it. I don't do any video work, stills only. Even though I may not use it alot, I like the idea of having coverage up to 300mm when I need it. Reviews I read stated that image quality on the 70-300L should rival the 70-200 f4L at most focal lengths plus I get the extra reach. I think you reinforced the way I was leaning. Always good to get some objective opinions. Thanks!


----------



## dpedro (Feb 20, 2013)

Did you sell that TC? How old is it?


----------

