Canon 70-200 f2.8 L plus extender or 70-300 L

Devonlad

Devonlad

Messages
354
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
I have just purchased a 5D mkiii along with a 24-105 IS L lens and am looking for a tele lens to compliment this.

I am torn between the 70-200 F2,8L and a 1.4 extender or the 70-300 IS L.
This would be used for general wildlife while out and about as well as static objects that are a distance away which the 24-105 cant reach.

Any thoughts
 
Had a bit of a play with a 70-300 as I was thinking of getting one. Nice lens, fast focus and sharp but decided to stick with the 70-200 2.8 MkII and the converter. More versatile for me and the 2.8 is oh so sharp
 
Gaz J said:
Had a bit of a play with a 70-300 as I was thinking of getting one. Nice lens, fast focus and sharp but decided to stick with the 70-200 2.8 MkII and the converter. More versatile for me and the 2.8 is oh so sharp
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, my budget is more around £1,200 so was looking at the MKI 70-200 and extender as i had this when i last had a Canon camera, read a few reviews of the 70-300 L and all were good but obviously F2.8 or F4 with a 1.4 extender at the long end might be something i would regret not having if i went down the 70-300 route.
 
I've owned both and currently have the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM MKII and the 2x MKIII extender. The 70-200mm MKI and a MKIII extender will work well but I'd suggest avoiding the 2x MKII extender. The 70-300mm L is an awesome little lens and produces exceptionally sharp images.

Just to throw another option at you... I had a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x extender which worked brilliantly with the 70-300 L. Image quality is still excellent although the AF does slow down a bit (but not badly). It'll give you a 420mm f/8 which isn't much good unless you've got good light but the 5DMKIII will handle it without much hassle.

I guess the other option would be a 100-400mm :)
 
I have the 24-105 and the 100-400 on a 5DMk2, I used to have the 70-200 f4 but I found it an expensive luxury as the difference between that and the 24-105 was not much use.
If I was buying now I would certainly give a lot of thought to the 70-300 rather than the 70-200, but I would still give serious thought to the 100-400
 
Just in terms of range, I think the 70-200 wouldn't really offer you much as you've already got up to 105 covered, and if you're going to leave the TC on, you might as well get a longer range to start with, i.e. 100-400..

I (personally) don't see the point in having such an overlap with the 24-105 and a 70-200/300.
 
Spiritflier said:
I've owned both and currently have the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM MKII and the 2x MKIII extender. The 70-200mm MKI and a MKIII extender will work well but I'd suggest avoiding the 2x MKII extender. The 70-300mm L is an awesome little lens and produces exceptionally sharp images.

Just to throw another option at you... I had a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x extender which worked brilliantly with the 70-300 L. Image quality is still excellent although the AF does slow down a bit (but not badly). It'll give you a 420mm f/8 which isn't much good unless you've got good light but the 5DMKIII will handle it without much hassle.

I guess the other option would be a 100-400mm :)
Click to expand...

Hi Simon thanks for that as the Kenko and 70-300 would be a great option and not one i had considered, every review i have read of the 70-300 has been good, the only thing in the back of my mind is the 70-200f2.8 L non IS was my lens of choice before i went over to Nikon, i cant afford both and wonder if ill be as happy with the 70-300 as i was with the 70-200
I have found a good price for the 70-300 and i think i should just take the plunge.

I had a 100-400 back in the day and never really liked it to be honest, the push pull also makes me worry about dust.
 
Durbs said:
Just in terms of range, I think the 70-200 wouldn't really offer you much as you've already got up to 105 covered, and if you're going to leave the TC on, you might as well get a longer range to start with, i.e. 100-400..

I (personally) don't see the point in having such an overlap with the 24-105 and a 70-200/300.
Click to expand...

It was something i considered but i never liked my 100-400 when i had one before.
As for overlap my 24-105 was purchased just to get me going i intend to sell it in favour of the 24-70 MKII once my bank balance recovers from the initial outlay of the camera and 3 lenses i will have.
 
How about the 70-200 f/4 IS, excellent lens, not too weighty and use mine with a Canon 1.4x TC when I need a bit of extra reach
 
tijuana taxi said:
How about the 70-200 f/4 IS, excellent lens, not too weighty and use mine with a Canon 1.4x TC when I need a bit of extra reach
Click to expand...

Wow i saw this morning on ebay there was one of these local to me and i have asked if i can go and have a look and try it on my camera, never even crossed my mind till then. I did not realise you could use the extender on these so might be a cheaper lighter option, Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top