Looking for a lighter, long lens

Everyone is going to have a favorite lens to suggest to you... for me it is the 70-200m f4 non IS. The first L lens that I bought and the one lens that I will never sell.

I have 70-200F4 L on 5D and never miss IS. Quality is typical L in sharpness, contrasts and colors. I don't think Canon non L or non-Canon lens in this range and within the same aperture will be able to match it by IQ and focus speed. My second choice would be 70-200 Sigma 2.8 in terms of IQ and cost, but it is not so light lens.

Differences between various versions of the 70-200mm are minor but generally speaking here is the order of increasing picture quality

f4 non IS
f2.8 IS
f2.8 non IS
f4 IS
f2.8 IS II

So when you look between f4 non IS and latest f2.8 and f4 IS there is a difference. For some it is not worth it, for some it is. Buy based on the budget.

Another vote for the 135/2... though it's likely going to be a bit over the price you want to pay. It's considerably smaller and less intrusive than any of the 70-200/2.8s. Weighs less, too, though it's still a significant chunk of glass. It will work very well with the 1.4X you have, too.

It doesn't have IS. Is IS essential? No. Is it very, very nice to have IS on longer lenses? Heck yes!

EDIT: I just noticed you are using FF cameras. Even more reason to get the 135/2... it's especially nice on FF. And the lens' lack of IS is a little less critical, than it is with a crop camera.

The 200L is a great lens and you can pair it with a 1.4x or 2X converter for more reach.

ChuckingFluff wrote in post #13504423
The 200L is a great lens and you can pair it with a 1.4x or 2X converter for more reach.

Little 200L (200mm f2.8) or the big daddy (200L f2 IS).

amfoto1 wrote in post #13504248
Another vote for the 135/2... though it's likely going to be a bit over the price you want to pay. It's considerably smaller and less intrusive than any of the 70-200/2.8s. Weighs less, too, though it's still a significant chunk of glass. It will work very well with the 1.4X you have, too.

It doesn't have IS. Is IS essential? No. Is it very, very nice to have IS on longer lenses? Heck yes!

EDIT: I just noticed you are using FF cameras. Even more reason to get the 135/2... it's especially nice on FF. And the lens' lack of IS is a little less critical, than it is with a crop camera.

I had the 135 and yes, it works great the 1.4X. But it's too close to the 100 Zeiss I have. In fact I sold both my 85L and 135L in favor of the 100 MakroPlanar.

I'd never use a 2X extender.

My thoughts so far:
1. 200 2.8 is indeed an option. 280 ƒ4 with the 1.4X. Not too versatile, but maybe a good choice in a kit of primes. IF I can get one for the right price. Having sold one before, It'll hurt to pay too much.
2. 100-300L 5.6 is interesting if I can find a clean one for a good price. I don't like push/pull, but at this price, weight and size, maybe I can live with it. A stop worse than the 200+1.4, but more versatile. Probably the cheapest lens by far in this list.
3. 70-200 ƒ4 non IS, also good. 280 5.6 when I need it (like the 100-300L), but newer glass. Lightweight and although a spot-on focal length to what I have, it'll be half the weight and little investment. About the same price as the 200 2.8.
4. 70-300 IS. Maybe, but the more I read about it, although its great up to 200, it gets soft after that. Although the great reviews in the shorter range, it goes to ƒ4.5 and 5 in a hurry. Very light, stealthy black, and IS. BUT, I think I'd get better IQ in a non-IQ lens as thats not where the money goes. A $350 Tamron with IS scares me -- whats the glass worth?

Yeah, I'd love the 200 ƒ2. But 1) it's waaayy too much money, and 2) doesn't solve the weight problem.

bobbyz wrote in post #13503985
Differences between various versions of the 70-200mm are minor but generally speaking here is the order of increasing picture quality

f4 non IS
f2.8 IS
f2.8 non IS
f4 IS
f2.8 IS II

So when you look between f4 non IS and latest f2.8 and f4 IS there is a difference. For some it is not worth it, for some it is. Buy based on the budget.

Hm, maybe more reason to go for a different lens. This is about what I thought, but the reviews aren't that obvious. I wonder where the 70-300IS and 100-300L fit in this.

mcluckie wrote in post #13504971
Hm, maybe more reason to go for a different lens.

You do realize they are comparing a $600 lens to $2,000 lens? And the comment was that the difference in image quality might not be that much for some users? Pretty good reason to buy the f4 non IS to me. Wait a minute it was a good reason for me! LOL

Sigma 150mm OS HSM?

Is the 70-200mm too heavy because you're holding it up shooting most of the time? Or just from having it strapped to you all day? What strap are you using? I use the Black Rapid RS-4 and like it a lot even with my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 attached. Look at the RS-4 or RS-7 model. I originally replaced my Canon strap with the POTN one, and while it was better, I still didn't like a neck strap in general. I tried a hand strap, which is fine with smaller lenses in certain situations. But I love the RS-4 and either have it on or nothing at all.

tempest68 wrote in post #13505036
Sigma 150mm OS HSM?

Is the 70-200mm too heavy because you're holding it up shooting most of the time? Or just from having it strapped to you all day? What strap are you using? I use the Black Rapid RS-4 and like it a lot even with my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 attached. Look at the RS-4 or RS-7 model. I originally replaced my Canon strap with the POTN one, and while it was better, I still didn't like a neck strap in general. I tried a hand strap, which is fine with smaller lenses in certain situations. But I love the RS-4 and either have it on or nothing at all.

I use Black Rapid also, and it's fine cross shoulder. But in the bag with a few other lenses, its heavy. Holding it up, its heavy, but OK.

tempest68 wrote in post #13505036
Sigma 150mm OS HSM?

+1 My thinking too, although the price might be more than OP wants to spend.

jwp721 wrote in post #13504992
You do realize they are comparing a $600 lens to $2,000 lens? And the comment was that the difference in image quality might not be that much for some users? Pretty good reason to buy the f4 non IS to me. Wait a minute it was a good reason for me! LOL

You're right of course. I had the ƒ4IS prior to the 2.8II. The ƒ4 is still in the running, and without IS to break, I think used would be good.

I also can't find the old 100-300L yet. I like the idea of not having 70-100, and 200-300 without having to add an extender. But, damn, how dim is that 5.6 viewfinder?

OK, 200 2.8 or 70-200 ƒ4 so far

there's one on the for sale section that's not getting any love...probably because the other options are better in my opinion...i'd rather have the tamron, or canon 70-300IS

https://photography-on-the.net …highlight=canon​+100-300mm

+1 for the 70-200mm f4L IS. i love mine.