Looking for a lighter, long lens

Looking for a lighter, long lens

I sold my passionately-loved 70-200 ƒ4IS to get the ƒ28II, but the bulk and weight make it a chore to carry all day. I ONLY shoot it at 2.8 in part to justify it (haha). When I carry primes, the longest I have is the Zeiss 100. I'd like something longer, lighter...

I'm looking for inexpensive recommendations (less than $600 would be easy) that don't include getting the 70-200 ƒ4IS again. I'd be tempted to sell off the 2.8II at too big a loss right now. And, then there's the mental beating I'd give myself. It's a great lens, but I don't always need it, I mean don't always want to carry it.

I really don't need less than 135 or more than 300. A lightweight zoom 150-300 would be great, but I haven't seen one.

I've been thinking about:
Canon 200 2.8 II prime. I had one prior to the ƒ4IS, but sold off due to not using it in favor of the IS zoom. I have a 1.4XII so I'd be also be getting a 280 ƒ4. But, AHH no IS!
Canon 70-300 IS (not L). It's black, weighs and costs a fraction of even the 4IS. Might be a better street lens and it's different enough (I hope not in the "too sucky" category) than my 2.8II to keep them both. IS, but how's the IQ? (The 70-300 L is too much $$, and just as heavy as the 70-200 2.8II I believe.)
Canon 70-200 ƒ4 (AHH non IS!). Again different enough from the 2.8II in terms of weight, and the price is right to keep them both. I have the 1.4X II so I'd be approaching the 70-300 but without the IS. I read that the IQ isn't the same as the IS version, but how does it really compare, and to the 70-300 IS?

Canon 70-200 ƒ4 IS. Yet again (damn I hate buying the same lens twice, but I did sell the original before the price drops). Is there no other choice for a glass snob like me? If I do this, I'm saying goodbye to the 2.8II.

Thanks in advance, Bob

The 70-300 is not quite optically as good as the 70-200 f/4IS (that lens is special) but for the cost and weight its a really nice lens. Is compact, light, reasonably fast focusing and pretty decent optically. Definitely worth looking at.

I like the 70-200 f4L IS - I think you would regret not having the IS since you've had it before. Also keep the 135L in mind - fast 2.0 aperture and you can use your TC to get to 200 if needed (this lens is so nice I'm willing to overlook the lack of IS).

jrbdmb wrote in post #13503250
I like the 70-200 f4L IS - I think you would regret not having the IS since you've had it before. Also keep the 135L in mind - fast 2.0 aperture and you can use your TC to get to 200 if needed (this lens is so nice I'm willing to overlook the lack of IS).

I liked it too. That lens is my LAST choice for reasons that include the probability that I'd have to sell the 2.8II, both for financial and duplication issues.

gjl711 wrote in post #13503231
The 70-300 is not quite optically as good as the 70-200 f/4IS (that lens is special) but for the cost and weight its a really nice lens. Is compact, light, reasonably fast focusing and pretty decent optically. Definitely worth looking at.

But how is it against the 70-200 ƒ4 non-IS?

Does everyone think a long lens needs IS? I think I do, but if the IQ of the 70-200 ƒ4 non-IS is better than the 70-300 IS, I'd be tempted.

I've had both the 70-200 f4 IS and non IS. I now have the non-IS because the IS, IMO, was not worth ~double the price of the non-IS. You won't really notice any difference in IQ unless you pixel peep. The main differences are the IS and weather sealing, and that is what I based my choice on, because the IQ difference was not worth considering.

Do I miss IS? Not really. There are some situations where I wouldn't mind having it, but it is by no means something I regret. In fact, I'm extremely happy that I saved $600 by going non-IS.

135L & 1.4 or 2.0 TC

Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 VC (Image Stabilization) USD (USM), $360 at B&H right now. It gets some great reviews and you just cannot beat the performance for the price.

mcluckie wrote in post #13503214
Looking for a lighter, long lens

I sold my passionately-loved 70-200 ƒ4IS to get the ƒ28II, but the bulk and weight make it a chore to carry all day. I ONLY shoot it at 2.8 in part to justify it (haha). When I carry primes, the longest I have is the Zeiss 100. I'd like something longer, lighter...

I'm looking for inexpensive recommendations (less than $600 would be easy) that don't include getting the 70-200 ƒ4IS again. I'd be tempted to sell off the 2.8II at too big a loss right now. And, then there's the mental beating I'd give myself. It's a great lens, but I don't always need it, I mean don't always want to carry it.

I really don't need less than 135 or more than 300. A lightweight zoom 150-300 would be great, but I haven't seen one.

I've been thinking about:
Canon 200 2.8 II prime. I had one prior to the ƒ4IS, but sold off due to not using it in favor of the IS zoom. I have a 1.4XII so I'd be also be getting a 280 ƒ4. But, AHH no IS!

I'd rather go 135L, and use the extender with that, to give a 189 F/2.8L .
You do have the 7-2 II however, so that may defeat the object a bit . It is a lot lighter though, and I shoot it quite often at 1/30s without too many problems.

Another possibility could be 180 F/3.5L of course ...

That could be an option. It is a little soft at the long end, but still quite usable. What about trying to find a 100-300 F/5.6L in good condition?

Another possibility could be the 70-300 DO IS. It requires good PP skills, however.

Great little lens, and good when focusing close. The 7-2 4 IS and non-IS are very close; the IS version is a bit better wide open, but at close ranges at the long end the non-IS version beats the IS one.

Can't say anything about the 70-300L, it is too large for my liking. If I want something that large and a zoom, I'd want more reach and push-pull, hence 100-400L.

A few primes?

One thing I didn't like with the 7-2 4 IS is the output when shooting semi-macro at the long end - I shoot (semi-) macro with any lens. The output is great for portraits, but less so for flowers and/or insects. The 7-2 4 non-IS definitely did better in this department, including razor sharp portraits.

Summarizing:

135L, with or without extender
180L
70-200 F/4L
70-300 DO IS
100-300 F/5.6L

Or maybe for something completely different:
Leitz-R 180 F/3.4 APO, adapted - that's for the true lens snobs amongst us, I understand

And with any of these you'd still have to keep the 70-200 F/2.8L IS II, because they are completely different lenses....

Kind regards, Wim

gojirasf wrote in post #13503425
Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 VC (Image Stabilization) USD (USM), $360 at B&H right now. It gets some great reviews and you just cannot beat the performance for the price.

This is what I'd do. Take a look at the reviews. Take the extra cash and put it aside for the next lens need.

Sigma 50-150 2.8?

mcluckie wrote in post #13503351
But how is it against the 70-200 ƒ4 non-IS?

Does everyone think a long lens needs IS? I think I do, but if the IQ of the 70-200 ƒ4 non-IS is better than the 70-300 IS, I'd be tempted.

I suggest you go to lens archive here on the forum, and compare the two, you be the judge.

I had that lens when I had all Leica R's and M's. And I'm not about to do stop down metering on the street.

Stir Fry A Lot wrote in post #13503763
Sigma 50-150 2.8?

I've got a 100ZE ƒ2, so that doesn't buy me much longer. 150 or 200+

The 55-250 weighs nothing.