Results 1 to 41 of 41

Thread: ? the new 70-200 or save for the 300

  1. #1
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default ? the new 70-200 or save for the 300

    I've been thinking about getting the new 70-200. I have the Canon 100-400 and a Canon 7D. I am still learning, and would eventually like a 300mm. I love shooting birds and hummingbirds that are in my yard year round. I also like shooting people. I'm a teacher and take lots of pics of my students. I've heard people love the 70-200 for some birding and portrait shots.
    Do you think I should save for the 300 or would the 70-200 be good for birding and portraits?
    Thanks for any advice.
    Nancy

  2. #2
    Lifetime Member Doug Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    11,879
    Threads
    917
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Unless you live in Florida, you'll find the 70-200 to be too short in the reach department for most bird photography. And it doesn't give you much of anything that you don't already have with the 100-400. Have you thought about a 50mm f/1.4 or an 85 f/1.8 for portraits? Keep the 100-400 for birds. It'll save you some money.
    Upcoming Workshops: Bosque del Apache 2019, Ecuador 2020 (details coming soon)
    Website -
    Facebook - 500px

  3. #3
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,320
    Threads
    302
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I'd say skip the 300 and save for the 500 if you're serious about it and don't live in Florida. Myself I started with the 70-200F4, transitioned to the 400F5.6 and never looked back the first time I rented the 500. It is a game changer. JR

  4. #4
    BPN Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Rockies
    Posts
    1,273
    Threads
    106
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I agree with the above comments. Additionally, I keep hoping for an upgrade to the 100-400. I have heard rumors to that effect.
    Andrew

  5. #5
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Irvine, CA, USA
    Posts
    358
    Threads
    24
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Nancy, you don't mention which 300mm you're considering. If it's the f/2.8, then you can use it with the 2X extender, giving you a very manageable 600mm lens. I know people who use this combination with birds and are very happy with it. On the other hand, if you're thinking about the 300mm f/4, then I agree with the above comments: it works well with the 1.4X extender, but that combination doens't give you much more capability than what you already have with the 100-400 zoom.

    Joerg is absolutely right, though, about the 500mm f/4 being a game changer. I just went through a similar experience to his, having used the 400mm f/5.6 for a year and recently acquiring the 500. I'm now capturing images I only dreamed about with the 400.

    John

  6. #6
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    1,376
    Threads
    213
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    The 70-200 with the 1.4 or 2x TC might be all you need for your backyard birds. The 70-200 is a wonderful diverse lens and is perfect for portraits. For reference sake the leading photographers for the most widely known mens magazine use that lens more than any other for portraits. It enables you to maintain a nice distance from your subject which puts them at ease.

  7. #7
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,647
    Threads
    83
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    The 2x TC is only going to be useful on the f/2.8, except for manual focus. I've got the 70-200mm f/4L IS and I've used it a tiny bit for birds, in Hawaii, but here in Colorado I mainly use my 500mm f/4L IS. I use the 70-200mm, with and without the 2xTC, for a lot of scenics and wildlife shooting (deer, coyotes, etc.). It's a great all around lens for people and certain sports, but it won't equal your 100-400mm for birding.

    Vs. the 500, I think that the new Series II 300mm f/2.8 with the new Series III extenders is a worthy competitor. We haven't really seen the reviews yet, but the new 300mm with the new 2.0xTC might really give the 500mm and 600mm f/4s a run for their money. The bucks are big all around in these lengths and speeds, so you need to study the situation hard before stepping into this territory.

  8. #8
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Brown View Post
    Unless you live in Florida, you'll find the 70-200 to be too short in the reach department for most bird photography. And it doesn't give you much of anything that you don't already have with the 100-400. Have you thought about a 50mm f/1.4 or an 85 f/1.8 for portraits? Keep the 100-400 for birds. It'll save you some money.

    Thank you Doug. I was kind of thinking the same thing. The draw of the new 70-200 is the speed. I like to shoot hummingbirds that will allow me to get fairly close, but I keep thinking that the $2,000 plus might be better spent (or not) saving for a 300 mm 2.8. I also wanted to get involved with other types of photography too. We do have a Tamron 28 - 270, so I'm thinking the 70-200 might be a duplicate. (of course the Tamron and Canon are not the same quality lens) I'm torn.
    Thanks
    Nancy

  9. #9
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thans Joerg. I would LOVE to have a 500, but I have a bad back and wonder if I could handle it. I live in So. Cal and can get birds a little closer, but am always wishing for more reach.
    I thought the new 300 2.8 with a 1 X TC or 2X TC would be lighter and easier to handle, but I don't know if I'm ever going to have the money for that.
    I think this is part of my dilemma - I want a 500 but wonder if its size would be a problem.
    Thanks for your input.
    Nancy


    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg Rockenberger View Post
    I'd say skip the 300 and save for the 500 if you're serious about it and don't live in Florida. Myself I started with the 70-200F4, transitioned to the 400F5.6 and never looked back the first time I rented the 500. It is a game changer. JR

  10. #10
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks Andrew. I bet they will upgrade the 100-400 eventually. It seems that so many lenses are being upgraded.
    Nancy
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Merwin View Post
    I agree with the above comments. Additionally, I keep hoping for an upgrade to the 100-400. I have heard rumors to that effect.

  11. #11
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks for your input John. At first I wanted a 500, but I think I may have trouble managing it and I have a lot to learn before moving up to that expensive of a lens.
    I would like a faster lens for lower lights and I heard people rave about the 70-200 as a lens that is good for birds at closer range and other photography, However, my husband has a Tamron 28-270 which is also good for people shots. The new 300 looks like a fantastic lens and can be used with the new TC, but that will add up to almost the price of a 500.
    Did you buy your 500 new? I've also thought about a used 300 or 500.
    Thanks
    Nancy:D

    Quote Originally Posted by John Guastella View Post
    Nancy, you don't mention which 300mm you're considering. If it's the f/2.8, then you can use it with the 2X extender, giving you a very manageable 600mm lens. I know people who use this combination with birds and are very happy with it. On the other hand, if you're thinking about the 300mm f/4, then I agree with the above comments: it works well with the 1.4X extender, but that combination doens't give you much more capability than what you already have with the 100-400 zoom.

    Joerg is absolutely right, though, about the 500mm f/4 being a game changer. I just went through a similar experience to his, having used the 400mm f/5.6 for a year and recently acquiring the 500. I'm now capturing images I only dreamed about with the 400.

    John

  12. #12
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thank you Mike. This is kind of what I was thinking. I know I'll have grandkids in the next few years and I am a teacher, so I enjoy taking the students' pictures. However, it is pricey and my main interest is wildlife and birds.

    Thanks for your input. I wondered if the 70-200 would be good for people pics.
    Nancy


    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Tracy View Post
    The 70-200 with the 1.4 or 2x TC might be all you need for your backyard birds. The 70-200 is a wonderful diverse lens and is perfect for portraits. For reference sake the leading photographers for the most widely known mens magazine use that lens more than any other for portraits. It enables you to maintain a nice distance from your subject which puts them at ease.

  13. #13
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks David. I think that is why I am tempted to buy the 70-200. Part of the reason is to have a lens that would be good for other photography, as well as a faster lens for hummer photography. I am not experienced enough to validate the cost of the new 300 yet or the 500, but hope to be someday.
    I just don't want to buy a lens that is still quite pricey, to find that delays a longer lens when I am ready. My head is spinning. It will be a hard decision, but I appreciate your help.
    Nancy

    Quote Originally Posted by David Stephens View Post
    The 2x TC is only going to be useful on the f/2.8, except for manual focus. I've got the 70-200mm f/4L IS and I've used it a tiny bit for birds, in Hawaii, but here in Colorado I mainly use my 500mm f/4L IS. I use the 70-200mm, with and without the 2xTC, for a lot of scenics and wildlife shooting (deer, coyotes, etc.). It's a great all around lens for people and certain sports, but it won't equal your 100-400mm for birding.

    Vs. the 500, I think that the new Series II 300mm f/2.8 with the new Series III extenders is a worthy competitor. We haven't really seen the reviews yet, but the new 300mm with the new 2.0xTC might really give the 500mm and 600mm f/4s a run for their money. The bucks are big all around in these lengths and speeds, so you need to study the situation hard before stepping into this territory.

  14. #14
    Glenn Abuja
    Guest

    Default

    70-200 f2.8 is nice but you may use your 100-400 as long as the light is good and get more results.
    85mm for up close work or even 24-70.
    I own a 400mm f2.8 great lens but 10 lbs.
    The 500mm is not as fast but lighter and has great results. If you can find a used one with IS you can save big$.

  15. #15
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,647
    Threads
    83
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Without a doubt, the EF 500mm f/4L IS wonderful birding lens. When the time comes, you'll also want to use the 1.4x TC with it quite often, particularly for smaller birds.

    The weight and size of the 500mm makes for a change in life so far as your shooting goes. You'll really want a very sturdy and relatively expensive tripod and some sort of sturdy, smooth gimbal head or, like I did, a heavy ballhead and a Wimberley Sidekick. I'm a 250-lb, linebacker build and I only hand hold that lens occasionally.

    I've got the current version, but you might want to consider the series II along with the series III TCs, but I suspect that's going to add substantially to the already substantial price. Anyway, that sounds like it's down the road for you.

    I really don't see the 300mm unless you're going to use it with the TCs. You've already got a professional quality 100-400mm. As the owner of a 500mm, I'd seriously consider the 300mm f/2.8 plus TCs a contender, but I wouldn't own both. The 500mm plus the 1.4xTC gets me out to 700mm before adding the crop factor of the camera, so that is "real" reach.

    If you keep your 100-400mm and think of the 70-200mm f/4L IS as a very flexible, high quality, portable lens, rather than as a birding alternative, then I think you'll be very happy with it.

  16. #16
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,320
    Threads
    302
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Nancy, if weight of the 500 is a concern and you need more focal length then the 300F2.8 in combination with TCs is probably the best option.

    The best way to find out what you need and like is to rent the different lenses and compare.

    JR

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Nancy,
    If you are concerned about health implications of a big telephoto lens, I suggest testing one out before purchasing. Several options: go to a store (e.g. Calumet in LA), find a local camera club and see if people there have such a lens so you could feel how heavy it is, or see if someone on BPN lives nearby where you could see such a lens.

    Having said that, I have the 100-400, 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4. The 500 will need a good tripod and gimball head so add $1200 to $1500 to the price. That also means more weight to carry.

    For those you say you need a 500 for little birds, let's look at perspective. That may have been a desire a few years ago with cameras like the 1D Mark II and 1D Mark III, but the game has changed. The smaller pixels of the 7D means you can get the same (or better) detail on a bird with s 300 mm lens that previously required a 500 mm lens with a 1DII or 1DIII (or 20D, 30D, etc).

    The 300 f/2.8 is an extremely sharp lens, and because of its performance it will be the lens I take on my next safari (where I previously took 500 f/4). See my article on telephoto reach:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/

    Roger

  18. #18
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Irvine, CA, USA
    Posts
    358
    Threads
    24
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Did you buy your 500 new? I've also thought about a used 300 or 500.
    Nancy, I bought my 500 used on the Fred Miranda Buy/Sell forum. I live in SoCal as well (Irvine) and a local FMer (in Garden Grove) had a mint-condition 500 up for sale at a reasonable price. If you're comfortable buying used, I suggest you check out that forum because Canon superteles come up for sale regularly.

    I second the advice that you try renting a lens before buying. That's what I did with the 500. I rented from Calumet in Santa Ana which has a very reasonable discount for weekent rentals. The 500 is in high rental demand, however, so depending on which store you rent from, you may have to reserve the lens well in advance.

    As noted by others, a tripod/gimball head for the 500 is pretty much a requirement, which will add to the total cost. On the other hand, I do know some photographers who use that lens on a monopod.

    John

  19. #19
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=Glenn Abuja;606153]70-200 f2.8 is nice but you may use your 100-400 as long as the light is good and get more results.
    85mm for up close work or even 24-70.
    I own a 400mm f2.8 great lens but 10 lbs.
    The 500mm is not as fast but lighter and has great results. If you can find a used one with IS you can save big$.[/QUOTE

    Thanks for your ideas. After reading all the help from here I realize I have to decide if the 70-200 would get enough use. It sounds like it might be a great overall lens, but not used as much for wildlife.

    Later down the road, when I feel my skill has improved enough, I may be ready for the more expensive lenses. Then I will look for a used lens. Thanks
    Nancy

  20. #20
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Stephens View Post
    Without a doubt, the EF 500mm f/4L IS wonderful birding lens. When the time comes, you'll also want to use the 1.4x TC with it quite often, particularly for smaller birds.

    The weight and size of the 500mm makes for a change in life so far as your shooting goes. You'll really want a very sturdy and relatively expensive tripod and some sort of sturdy, smooth gimbal head or, like I did, a heavy ballhead and a Wimberley Sidekick. I'm a 250-lb, linebacker build and I only hand hold that lens occasionally.

    I've got the current version, but you might want to consider the series II along with the series III TCs, but I suspect that's going to add substantially to the already substantial price. Anyway, that sounds like it's down the road for you.

    I really don't see the 300mm unless you're going to use it with the TCs. You've already got a professional quality 100-400mm. As the owner of a 500mm, I'd seriously consider the 300mm f/2.8 plus TCs a contender, but I wouldn't own both. The 500mm plus the 1.4xTC gets me out to 700mm before adding the crop factor of the camera, so that is "real" reach.

    If you keep your 100-400mm and think of the 70-200mm f/4L IS as a very flexible, high quality, portable lens, rather than as a birding alternative, then I think you'll be very happy with it.

    Thanks David. My husband and I have been discussing this very idea. He also is getting back into photography, but isn't a birder. For us I think we've decided the quality of the 70-200 would be a great addition, but a replacement as a birding lens except for close birds.
    I always think of lenses in terms of birding lenses, but we do love other photography as well.
    Thanks so much for your ideas.
    Nancy

  21. #21
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg Rockenberger View Post
    Nancy, if weight of the 500 is a concern and you need more focal length then the 300F2.8 in combination with TCs is probably the best option.

    The best way to find out what you need and like is to rent the different lenses and compare.

    JR

    Thanks Joerg. Originally I had planned to rent these lenses, but after reading everything here and talking with my husband who also likes photography. I'm going to go with the 70-200, but for a good overall lens, not as a "birding lens". I don't think I have learned enough technique to get the best out of my 100-400. I do love the size of the 300 and the possibility of using it with TCs. I think either the 300 or 500 is still on my wish list.
    Thanks
    Nancy

  22. #22
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Clark View Post
    Nancy,
    If you are concerned about health implications of a big telephoto lens, I suggest testing one out before purchasing. Several options: go to a store (e.g. Calumet in LA), find a local camera club and see if people there have such a lens so you could feel how heavy it is, or see if someone on BPN lives nearby where you could see such a lens.

    Having said that, I have the 100-400, 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4. The 500 will need a good tripod and gimball head so add $1200 to $1500 to the price. That also means more weight to carry.

    For those you say you need a 500 for little birds, let's look at perspective. That may have been a desire a few years ago with cameras like the 1D Mark II and 1D Mark III, but the game has changed. The smaller pixels of the 7D means you can get the same (or better) detail on a bird with s 300 mm lens that previously required a 500 mm lens with a 1DII or 1DIII (or 20D, 30D, etc).

    The 300 f/2.8 is an extremely sharp lens, and because of its performance it will be the lens I take on my next safari (where I previously took 500 f/4). See my article on telephoto reach:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/

    Roger

    Thanks Roger for the ideas and article. A friend of mine has the 500 and I love it, but it seems so big, I have a hard time seeing myself using it as much as I might use the 300.
    I don't go on huge birding trips, but live in San Diego and there is a wealth of opportunities here. When I went to the Photo Expo in Del Mar, I fell in love with the new 300. That is way out of my price range right now, but I do think that is the direction I'll eventually go.
    Seeing the shots from the 500mms makes me wonder, but I am a bit older too. And as you and others have said, it is not just an investment in the lens, it is a better tripod, tripod head......

    Thanks for all your help. This forum is great.
    Nancy

  23. #23
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Guastella View Post
    Nancy, I bought my 500 used on the Fred Miranda Buy/Sell forum. I live in SoCal as well (Irvine) and a local FMer (in Garden Grove) had a mint-condition 500 up for sale at a reasonable price. If you're comfortable buying used, I suggest you check out that forum because Canon superteles come up for sale regularly.

    I second the advice that you try renting a lens before buying. That's what I did with the 500. I rented from Calumet in Santa Ana which has a very reasonable discount for weekent rentals. The 500 is in high rental demand, however, so depending on which store you rent from, you may have to reserve the lens well in advance.

    As noted by others, a tripod/gimball head for the 500 is pretty much a requirement, which will add to the total cost. On the other hand, I do know some photographers who use that lens on a monopod.

    John
    Thanks John. I also go on FM. My dilemma was would I use the 70-200 enough to make it a good investment. I know eventually I'd like to also get a longer lens, probably the new 300, so I was thinking I shouldn't spend the money on the 70-200 right now. But after hearing from everyone here, I think that the 70-200 will be a great overall lens, but I'm still going to save for a 300. And I will definitely rent before I buy.

    One more question. I've always bought the extended warr. with my lenses. I'm wondering if they are worth it, as I haven't had to use them yet?
    Thanks so much for the help.
    Nancy

  24. #24
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,647
    Threads
    83
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nancy hazen View Post
    One more question. I've always bought the extended warr. with my lenses. I'm wondering if they are worth it, as I haven't had to use them yet?
    Thanks so much for the help.
    Nancy
    I've never sprung for the EW and never had a need. (Knock wood).

  25. #25
    William Malacarne
    Guest

    Default

    Extended Warranty or EW

    What I did to solve this problem was several years ago instead of buying the EW I took the money that it would of cost for it and put it into a coffee can.. Over a number of years I had saved around $2000. That has been my repair money. I have only had to use some of it a couple of time. When used I replenish the funds over a period of time and it is always there.

    Bill

  26. #26
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Stephens View Post
    I've never sprung for the EW and never had a need. (Knock wood).
    Thanks Dave,
    I think we have wasted money on them in the past. I'm glad to hear others feel the same way.
    Nancy

  27. #27
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William Malacarne View Post
    Extended Warranty or EW

    What I did to solve this problem was several years ago instead of buying the EW I took the money that it would of cost for it and put it into a coffee can.. Over a number of years I had saved around $2000. That has been my repair money. I have only had to use some of it a couple of time. When used I replenish the funds over a period of time and it is always there.

    Bill
    Great idea Bill. I love the coffee can idea.
    Thanks
    Nancy

  28. #28
    BPN Member Julie Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    1,236
    Threads
    122
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Hi Nancy,
    You got a lot of great advice from these guys. One thing no one has mentioned yet, and what I was told when I first joined BPN, is that before buying a long lens, you can work on getting closer and perfecting your skills with the equipment you have now. My longest lens combo is a 300mm f4L IS + 1.4X extender (420mmm). I occasionally rent the 300mm f2.8L IS and with my 2X TC I can carry this on a monopod with a RRS monopod head pretty easily (I am in my 50's). Last month I rented the 500 f4L IS with a gimbal head just to try it out, but I can tell you that it was not as easy to maneuver as the 300 f2.8. From what I have seen on the web, the new version of the 300 f2.8 will be priced at $7000!
    My photoblog: juliebrown.aminus3.com

    My galleries: julielbrown.smugmug.com

    My WordPress blog: indybirdphotographer.com


    "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks”.

    John Muir

  29. #29
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Julie Brown View Post
    Hi Nancy,
    You got a lot of great advice from these guys. One thing no one has mentioned yet, and what I was told when I first joined BPN, is that before buying a long lens, you can work on getting closer and perfecting your skills with the equipment you have now. My longest lens combo is a 300mm f4L IS + 1.4X extender (420mmm). I occasionally rent the 300mm f2.8L IS and with my 2X TC I can carry this on a monopod with a RRS monopod head pretty easily (I am in my 50's). Last month I rented the 500 f4L IS with a gimbal head just to try it out, but I can tell you that it was not as easy to maneuver as the 300 f2.8. From what I have seen on the web, the new version of the 300 f2.8 will be priced at $7000!
    I agree totally. We are going to get the 70-200 which will be used for a lot of different photography as well as close birds. Someday I'd love a longer lens, but right now I am practicing and practicing. Thanks for your input.
    Nancy

  30. #30
    alain vandal
    Guest

    Default

    With the new 300mm coming, in not long time, you gonna have very good deal on the used "old" 300mm f2.8 IS. I absolutly love mine.

  31. #31
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Nancy, why are you considering the 70-200 since you have the Tamron? Solely for IQ? Is the difference in IQ that significant at this stage in your photographic career?

    I will assume the answer is "yes" for the rest of this discussion!

    I have a bad shoulder, and as a result I have seriously considered selling my 300 2/8. I'm not yet ready to sell.

    I used the 300 with the 1.4 and 2.0 for seven months in South America exclusively HH for BIF. I also use the 300 f/2.8 with stacked TCs when locked down on a tripod; I use the Sidekick since the 300 is light enough to not have any ball head creep.

    The IQ of the 300 f/2.8 + the 2.0 with the 7D is excellent. Having said that what is excellent for me might not be excellent for Artie, Roger, or others on BPN.

    I am selling my 70-200 f/4 and older TCs and I am buying the 70-200 f/2.8 and the new TCs; it should be a killer combination - according the Artie.

    I am trying to create a gear package that is relatively easily carry: 5D2 + 16-35, 7D + 70-200, and the 100 macro. There is only a small hole in this package which will go from 16 - 640 with the use of the TCs.

    I am going to New Zealand on a three week landscape ++ workshop and I am not taking the 300; someone else will have a 300 for an occasional image. That workshop, three weeks in the field, will decide if I am going to sell the 300. These days I am concentrating more on landscape and less on BIF.

    Yes, there is a significant focal difference between the 500 and the 300; less of a difference between the 300 and the 200; all with the 2.0 and the the 7D (1.6 crop).

    Having said that, one of the significant reasons I am considering selling the 300 is that even with the 2.0 + 7D (960) most BIF images are still almost postage stamps in the view finder. The 500 in the same configuration is 1600!

    Since I travel almost all of the time I will never carry the 500; I will rent the 500 when I finally do India and Africa. Again, however, I will be interested to hear from Roger when he returns from his trip having only taken the 300 whether he missed the longer focal length.

    Given that the new 300 f/2.8 is $7000, and the new 70-200 2.8 plus both TCs is half that price, unless you are hungry for small BIF, I would go with the 70-200 package and save for the longer lens.

    Since you are after IQ (assumption) you are going to want the 70-200 as part of you kit.

    EW: I have stopped buying for a lens; if it is going to have a problem it will most likely appear in the first year. I will still buy a 5yr Mack EW for camera bodies.
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  32. #32
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alain vandal View Post
    With the new 300mm coming, in not long time, you gonna have very good deal on the used "old" 300mm f2.8 IS. I absolutly love mine.

    THanks We did order the new 70-200. My husband will use it as well, and we are in this hobby for the long haul. Thanks for the idea though.
    Nancy

  33. #33
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Gould View Post
    Nancy, why are you considering the 70-200 since you have the Tamron? Solely for IQ? Is the difference in IQ that significant at this stage in your photographic career?

    I will assume the answer is "yes" for the rest of this discussion!

    I have a bad shoulder, and as a result I have seriously considered selling my 300 2/8. I'm not yet ready to sell.

    I used the 300 with the 1.4 and 2.0 for seven months in South America exclusively HH for BIF. I also use the 300 f/2.8 with stacked TCs when locked down on a tripod; I use the Sidekick since the 300 is light enough to not have any ball head creep.

    The IQ of the 300 f/2.8 + the 2.0 with the 7D is excellent. Having said that what is excellent for me might not be excellent for Artie, Roger, or others on BPN.

    I am selling my 70-200 f/4 and older TCs and I am buying the 70-200 f/2.8 and the new TCs; it should be a killer combination - according the Artie.

    I am trying to create a gear package that is relatively easily carry: 5D2 + 16-35, 7D + 70-200, and the 100 macro. There is only a small hole in this package which will go from 16 - 640 with the use of the TCs.

    I am going to New Zealand on a three week landscape ++ workshop and I am not taking the 300; someone else will have a 300 for an occasional image. That workshop, three weeks in the field, will decide if I am going to sell the 300. These days I am concentrating more on landscape and less on BIF.

    Yes, there is a significant focal difference between the 500 and the 300; less of a difference between the 300 and the 200; all with the 2.0 and the the 7D (1.6 crop).

    Having said that, one of the significant reasons I am considering selling the 300 is that even with the 2.0 + 7D (960) most BIF images are still almost postage stamps in the view finder. The 500 in the same configuration is 1600!

    Since I travel almost all of the time I will never carry the 500; I will rent the 500 when I finally do India and Africa. Again, however, I will be interested to hear from Roger when he returns from his trip having only taken the 300 whether he missed the longer focal length.

    Given that the new 300 f/2.8 is $7000, and the new 70-200 2.8 plus both TCs is half that price, unless you are hungry for small BIF, I would go with the 70-200 package and save for the longer lens.

    Since you are after IQ (assumption) you are going to want the 70-200 as part of you kit.

    EW: I have stopped buying for a lens; if it is going to have a problem it will most likely appear in the first year. I will still buy a 5yr Mack EW for camera bodies.

    Great points Jay. We did decide to buy the new 70-200. I am a perfectionist, and plan to spend a lot of time on technique. I thought about buying a used 70-200, but my husband will use this lens as well, so we rationalized it that way.

    I'm not sure what my next step in lens purchasing will be. I get frustrated with the need for light with my 100-400, but living in the San Diego area, that usually isn't a big problem. I'm excited about the 70-200 now because I live near Santee Lakes and the birds are quite comfortable with people. I plan to go there as often as the weather permits to practice, practice, practice. It has been very dark and gloomy these past several days. I'm hoping the weather breaks soon.

    Thanks for giving me those ideas.
    Nancy

  34. #34
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I certainly applaud your choice. Someday i will knock on your door. While I live in Australia, I am from California; my brother, Steve Gould, is a professional photographer in SD and I visit often.
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  35. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Gould View Post
    The IQ of the 300 f/2.8 + the 2.0 with the 7D is excellent. Having said that what is excellent for me might not be excellent for Artie, Roger, or others on BPN.
    Hi Jay

    I think the IQ of the present 300 f/2.8 is superb, not only with a 2x TC but with stacked 1.4+2x TCs. It is for this reason that I feel comfortable taking it to Africa on my next trip instead of the 500 f/4.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Gould View Post
    Having said that, one of the significant reasons I am considering selling the 300 is that even with the 2.0 + 7D (960) most BIF images are still almost postage stamps in the view finder. The 500 in the same configuration is 1600!
    Crop factor is not a factor in telephoto reach for subjects that do not fill the frame.

    So the relevant metrics are:
    300 + 2x on 7D = 600 mm.
    500 + 1.4x on a 7D = 700mm (you can't AF with 7D with the 2x).

    So with a 7D, there is not much penalty.

    More details at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Gould View Post
    Since I travel almost all of the time I will never carry the 500; I will rent the 500 when I finally do India and Africa. Again, however, I will be interested to hear from Roger when he returns from his trip having only taken the 300 whether he missed the longer focal length.
    I will report when I return and have a change to go through the images.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Gould View Post
    EW: I have stopped buying for a lens; if it is going to have a problem it will most likely appear in the first year. I will still buy a 5yr Mack EW for camera bodies.
    I never buy extended warranties, and have saved a lot of money over the years to more than pay for a repair.

    Regarding the 70-200 f/2.8 II with a 2x TC, the clear aperture is only 71.4 mm, which gives a diffraction limit of 1.6 arc-seconds. On the 7D the pixel spacing at 400 mm is 2.2 arc-seconds, which is pretty close (40%) to the diffraction limit. Thus the finest detail will be reduced in contrast. In comparison, the 300 f/2.8 has an aperture of 107 mm and a diffraction limit of only 1.08 arc-seconds. The 300 f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC should give better contrast in the fine details, as we would expect, being a much larger more expensive lens.

    Roger

  36. #36
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Roger, as we say down under, I have so bloody much respect for you; I wait for your posts educating me and others.

    Having said that, for my purposes you left out an important factor; size and weight.

    I am carrying the Lowepro Orion, the waist bag only which is large, and a Camelback backpack.

    Everything else being equal:

    70-200 f/2.8: 7.8" x 3.5"; 3.3 lbs.

    300 f/2.8: 9.9" x 5.0"; 5.6 lbs.

    The 70-200 will stand up in my waist bag; and I still have the 5D2 with the 16-35 attached in the waist bag. The 7D goes in my backpack when traveling.

    Isn't that why you are taking the 300 instead of the 500?
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  37. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Gould View Post
    Roger, as we say down under, I have so bloody much respect for you; I wait for your posts educating me and others.

    Having said that, for my purposes you left out an important factor; size and weight.

    I am carrying the Lowepro Orion, the waist bag only which is large, and a Camelback backpack.

    Everything else being equal:

    70-200 f/2.8: 7.8" x 3.5"; 3.3 lbs.

    300 f/2.8: 9.9" x 5.0"; 5.6 lbs.

    The 70-200 will stand up in my waist bag; and I still have the 5D2 with the 16-35 attached in the waist bag. The 7D goes in my backpack when traveling.

    Isn't that why you are taking the 300 instead of the 500?
    Yes, Jay. I want to reduce weight. Not so much for travel, but while on safari, I want to be able to move faster with a lighter lens. That includes moving from standing to a lower position as fast as possible. If I can have the door open, I can quickly get down on the floor to shoot. I found the 500 too bulky and heavey for me to move as fast as I want to. And to carry the 300 f/2.8 on hikes. On previous hikes, I left the 500 in the hotel and took a 300 f/4 to save weight.

    Roger

  38. #38
    ldelacruz
    Guest

    Default

    Nancy,
    I have the 70-200 2.8, 300 2.8 IS, 500 f4 IS, 1.4 TCII and 2X TCII. I use my 70-200 for portraits 90% of the time but never use it for wildlife because it is too short. I would keep the 100-400 as your wildlife lens and look at the 85 1.8 for portraits. I really don't like the IQ when using the 70-200 with TC's or the 2X on the 300. Hope this helps.

  39. #39
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Gould View Post
    I certainly applaud your choice. Someday i will knock on your door. While I live in Australia, I am from California; my brother, Steve Gould, is a professional photographer in SD and I visit often.
    I'd love to meet you Jay. You are welcome any time.
    Nancy

  40. #40
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Clark View Post
    Hi Jay

    I think the IQ of the present 300 f/2.8 is superb, not only with a 2x TC but with stacked 1.4+2x TCs. It is for this reason that I feel comfortable taking it to Africa on my next trip instead of the 500 f/4.




    Crop factor is not a factor in telephoto reach for subjects that do not fill the frame.

    So the relevant metrics are:
    300 + 2x on 7D = 600 mm.
    500 + 1.4x on a 7D = 700mm (you can't AF with 7D with the 2x).

    So with a 7D, there is not much penalty.

    More details at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/



    I will report when I return and have a change to go through the images.




    I never buy extended warranties, and have saved a lot of money over the years to more than pay for a repair.

    Regarding the 70-200 f/2.8 II with a 2x TC, the clear aperture is only 71.4 mm, which gives a diffraction limit of 1.6 arc-seconds. On the 7D the pixel spacing at 400 mm is 2.2 arc-seconds, which is pretty close (40%) to the diffraction limit. Thus the finest detail will be reduced in contrast. In comparison, the 300 f/2.8 has an aperture of 107 mm and a diffraction limit of only 1.08 arc-seconds. The 300 f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC should give better contrast in the fine details, as we would expect, being a much larger more expensive lens.

    Roger
    That really explains it well Roger, thanks. Now, I've got to save, save, save.
    Nancy

  41. #41
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    371
    Threads
    30
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ldelacruz View Post
    Nancy,
    I have the 70-200 2.8, 300 2.8 IS, 500 f4 IS, 1.4 TCII and 2X TCII. I use my 70-200 for portraits 90% of the time but never use it for wildlife because it is too short. I would keep the 100-400 as your wildlife lens and look at the 85 1.8 for portraits. I really don't like the IQ when using the 70-200 with TC's or the 2X on the 300. Hope this helps.

    Thanks. We ended up getting the 70-200, but I realized I wasn't trying to decide between two lenses. The more I listened to people, the more I realized I wanted it as a "people and all around lens". That is not to say I'd like to add a 300 or 500 some day. However, my skills need a lot of work right now.
    Thanks for your thoughts.
    Nancy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics