Trumper Goldmember 1,447 posts Likes: 659 Joined May 2003 More info | Jun 05, 2013 10:14 | #1 I have a a 5D MK2 with a 70-200L NON IS but i am starting to use the video quite a bit and miss the IS.I also have the 100-400L IS but it is quite a large heavy lump to lug around.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jun 05, 2013 10:25 | #2 Why not the IS version of the 70-200 f4? 5D3, 7D2, 1D3, 40D, 14 f2.8 Samyang, 17-40 L, 28-80 L, 70-200 2.8ii L, 200 2.8ii L, 200-400 L, 1.4 ii,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
edrader "I am not the final word"  More info | Jun 05, 2013 10:30 | #3 Trumper wrote in post #16002010  I have a a 5D MK2 with a 70-200L NON IS but i am starting to use the video quite a bit and miss the IS.I also have the 100-400L IS but it is quite a large heavy lump to lug around. Is the 70-300L IS a viable addition for the IS and weight saving? All advice welcome Thanks  I have both lenses and the weight difference is .7 lbs. -- 3lbs. vs 2.3lbs. of course I prefer to carry the 70-300L which also has much better IS. http://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jun 05, 2013 13:02 | #4 ed rader wrote in post #16002070 I have both lenses and the weight difference is .7 lbs. -- 3lbs. vs 2.3lbs. of course I prefer to carry the 70-300L which also has much better IS.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
edrader "I am not the final word" More info | Jun 05, 2013 22:50 | #5 Trumper wrote in post #16002606 Is the weight saving and the newer IS worth the cost do you think?. I already have the 70-200 NON IS version which is excellent for photos ,the IS version is almost the same price as the 70-300L IS so you get the extra range for a newer lens. heck yeah. it's an excellent lens and very packable. http://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
sebr Goldmember  4,628 posts Likes: 9 Joined Jan 2007 Location: Sweden/France More info | Jun 06, 2013 06:31 | #6 You should go to a store to see if it fits your size/weight requirements. It is lighter than the 100-400 and much smaller. I also find it is very well balanced on the 5D3. Sebastien
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ScottM Goldmember More info | Jun 06, 2013 06:44 | #7 The 70-200 f/4 IS L is $250 cheaper (with the current $200 rebate on the 70-300L) and over .5 lbs. lighter than the 70-300L. If you are keeping the 100-400L, the 70-200 f/4 IS is a great complementary light weight telephoto lens.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jun 11, 2013 14:45 | #8 nellyle wrote in post #16002047 Why not the IS version of the 70-200 f4? I already have the non IS version of that lens and the price of the IS version is about the same as the 70-300L IS ,so for the extra reach and the newer optics and IS it may be a better lense for carrying around.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Krai Hatchling 8 posts Joined Nov 2010 More info | I have the 70-200 with a 1.4X extender. However, I am thinking about buying the 100-400 simply because of offers the maximum reach in the Canon zooms. Is the reach on the 100-400 that much more than the 70-200 plus 1.4X? In other words, can one really sit up on the difference?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is semonsters 903 guests, 122 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
