Moved to FF... all over the place on long end

I've just moved to full frame with a 5D3 and do a lot of sports, albeit mostly indoors lately, and would like to do more wildlife. I've shot with a 1.3 crop body for years, so need to get something for the long end. I gave up my beloved 400 f/2.8 last year, and had been making do with the 200L + TCs. But, with the full frame, I need to do something different there. I'm a big all over the map.

- I'm liking the 100-400, but its getting long in the tooth and not crazy about the form factor.
- I have thought about giving up the 200L f/1.8 and getting a 300L f/2.8 IS... because with TCs it will go a little longer than the 200, and naked it will be the right focal length indoors for what the 200 had been doing for me.
- I've thought about the 70-300 non-L as a supplemental to throw in the bag for family outings, but also thought about the Tamron 28-300 for the same reason (and I know its not L quality glass).

And I've debated about every other possible option in the 300-400 range...

I think I need to just not do anything and see if anything floats to the top, but I have a hard time doing that.

OK. So what's your question?

Mike

The 70-300 non-L is a good lens; I have owned two of them. (I sold the first one, regretted it, and bought another.) But given the high quality of the lenses you already have, I suggest getting the L version instead. According to tests I have seen, it is considerably sharper than the non-L version, particularly at the long end.

The 300mm f/2.8L is a beautiful lens with excellent quality & works well with TC's, but may lack flexibility.

MikeWa wrote in post #15280021
OK. So what's your question?

Mike

Good question. I am just locked up on what to do to fill in the long end. I think I'm just looking for thoughts and ideas about what other people use with a similar kit to mine. I've had a super tele in the kit for a while, and thought about just going to a 100-400 for now. I'm not sure if I'll be getting back to outdoor sports anytime soon, but do have some interest in wildlife. And, I've used the 200 quite a bit indoors, but I think the 300 may be more appropriate now. I can get there with a TC on the 200, but then I give up the ability to do the longer range stuff with the 300 and TCs outdoors.

I'm just looking to bounce around ideas.

RodneyCyr wrote in post #15280095
The 70-300 non-L is a good lens; I have owned two of them. (I sold the first one, regretted it, and bought another.) But given the high quality of the lenses you already have, I suggest getting the L version instead. According to tests I have seen, it is considerably sharper than the non-L version, particularly at the long end.

In spite of my current line up, I'm not an "L-only" kind of guy. One of the lenses I've used the most over the last few years was the 18-200 IS on a 50D for "family pics". The heavy L side of the kit is for indoor sports, and with the move to the 5D3 from 1D3, I'm trying to get away from just using primes at f/2, and use the zooms. I'll be giving up the 85 for sure, and probably the 135 after a little more time with the 70-200 II. The 200... hmmmmm... that will be a hard one to give up, but I'm starting to lean towards a 300 as a reasonable replacement to fit better with the 5D3 and the rest of the lineup.

I loved 300mm f2.8 when I had my 5dmk3. If it is just wildlife then 400mm f5.6 for much cheaper.

The 200-400 should be released soon. Got 10K to spare?

Why not the 70-300L? I know you mentioned the non-L but Im confused why you wouldn't consider the L, since its roughly the same price as the 100-400 that you are looking at - but with the latest IS tech and in a nicer package (ergonimcs)

I love the 100-400L on my 5D3. The image quality is exceptional, and the focal length offers a lot of flexibilty. I also kept my 7D for times I need some extra "reach", or when two camera bodies are handy for fewer lens changes.

frugivore wrote in post #15280525
The 200-400 should be released soon. Got 10K to spare?

You're a funny guy!

Scott M wrote in post #15281458
I love the 100-400L on my 5D3. The image quality is exceptional, and the focal length offers a lot of flexibilty. I also kept my 7D for times I need some extra "reach", or when two camera bodies are handy for fewer lens changes.

The problem I'm having is each of these choices I'm looking at as potentially different targeted shooting, and I certainly can't justify doing all of them. Since I have the 200, if I get rid of it, I doubt I'd be happy with anything but another super tele... the 300 being the most logical. The 100-400 probably makes the most sense for me at this point to be honest. I just wish it wasn't so dated. There seems to be wide variation in samples of it too.

I bought a 'dated' 100-400L this past spring. It is razor sharp at 400, even wide-open. It is, hands down, a better lens than the 70-300 non-L. I owned that lens and it is very weak at 300mm & f/5.6 - much better at f/8. I am not a tele expert, but I have to say the IS on that lens is of little value at 400mm. It works, it just doesn't help very much. I am a bit older and maybe a bit shakier than some shooters, but even with the IS on, I am lucky to get clean shots at 1/320. 1/200 is approaching pointless. I try to keep it at 1/400 or faster. Oh, I like the trombone-style zoom. It grows on you.

For just outdoor wildlife, Sigma does have some decent 500mm zooms you might want to look at. If you need more as far as sports go---I've only really shot sports on a 7D so I can't say much about sports on full-frame (I usually use a 70-200mm), but ditching the 200/1.8 for a 300/2.8 sounds like a really good idea.

liberm wrote in post #15281800
For just outdoor wildlife, Sigma does have some decent 500mm zooms you might want to look at. If you need more as far as sports go---I've only really shot sports on a 7D so I can't say much about sports on full-frame (I usually use a 70-200mm), but ditching the 200/1.8 for a 300/2.8 sounds like a really good idea.

I'll have to take a look at the long Sigmas. The last one I had was a pre-OS 120-300 2.8. I loved it until I got a Canon supertele... then I rarely ever used it. I assume the current gen stuff is better.

TSchrief wrote in post #15281652
I bought a 'dated' 100-400L this past spring. It is razor sharp at 400, even wide-open. It is, hands down, a better lens than the 70-300 non-L. I owned that lens and it is very weak at 300mm & f/5.6 - much better at f/8. I am not a tele expert, but I have to say the IS on that lens is of little value at 400mm. It works, it just doesn't help very much. I am a bit older and maybe a bit shakier than some shooters, but even with the IS on, I am lucky to get clean shots at 1/320. 1/200 is approaching pointless. I try to keep it at 1/400 or faster. Oh, I like the trombone-style zoom. It grows on you.

That has pretty much been my experience with the 100-400L and 70-300 non-L. My 100-400L is sharp wide open at 400mm, while the 70-300 was soft under similar settings. The auto focus performance difference between these two lenses was very significant, too.

I generally try to keep my shutter speed at 1/800sec or faster when using this lens with the 5D3, or 1/1000sec with the 7D. While I can shoot slower, at these speeds I am 100% confident in getting sharp shots. Also, with the exellent high ISO performance of those two bodies, maintaining these shutter speeds is not very difficult.