Best telephoto Landscape lens?

I'm in the market for the best telephoto landscape lens for my FF camera. By "landscape", I don't mean sweeping vistas, but rather interesting objects within land and cityscape views that require telephoto power to isolate.

My choices are:

Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS $1,200
Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS $1,350
Canon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 DO IS $1,400
Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II $2,200

Which one should I buy? I'm a lens sharpness freak, so keep that in mind. And I don't know what zoom range would be used most. Is 300mm+ overkill? Thanks for your advice.

100-400ii, 300+ is NOT overkill.

Ditto 100-400mm, you will need AT LEAST 400mm to make good use of the Sun or Moon as subject material in a landscape...

and the difference from 70mm-100mm is negligible enough that the 70-200mm would in fact just be a limiting range.

I'd also go with the 100-400, especially on a FF. If you don't mind the size and weight.

The 70-200 f/4L IS is a wonderful lens if you don't need the reach of the 400.

Sounds like the 100-400 ii is the winner.
Should I get a lens plate or foot replacement?

I have a Kirk and a RRS foot replacement. I prefer the RRS because there is a little more room for my fingers between the foot and the lens

I have the Kirk replacement foot, and it works well for my purpose.

Shooter bud of mine uses the 100-400II. If I had the money, I'd upgrade my original. Sharper, faster to focus, better IQ. An all-around winner, if you have $2200.

If you are primarily shooting on a tripod, then the Kirk or RRS foot makes sense.

i for one ended up removing my Kirk foot, (which requires tools) as I have yet to use it on a tripod and wanted to maintain the ability for tool-less removal/replacement of the stock foot, but keep it handy in the bag.

texshooter wrote in post #17663786
I'm in the market for the best telephoto landscape lens for my FF camera. By "landscape", I don't mean sweeping vistas, but rather interesting objects within land and cityscape views that require telephoto power to isolate.

My choices are:

Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS $1,200
Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS $1,350
Canon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 DO IS $1,400
Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II $2,200

Which one should I buy? I'm a lens sharpness freak, so keep that in mind. And I don't know what zoom range would be used most. Is 300mm+ overkill? Thanks for your advice.

Heya,

The 70-300L makes the most sense for cost and overall focal range.

They're all sharp as all get out at F8~F11.

But while we're on the subject, I would throw the Sigma 150-600 OS out there as an option. Very sharp at F8~F11. Way more focal range options.

Very best,

Do size and weight matter to you? If not then the 100-400ii (or possibly the Sigma 150-600 MalVeauX mentioned). If so then the 70-300L might be a better choice. You give up some range, but it's smaller/lighter (and cheaper). If you're hiking to a location that might make a difference.

Canon 70-300L - 3.5"x5.6", 1050g
Canon 100-400ii - 3.7"x7.6", 1590g
Sigma 150-600C - 4.1"x10.2", 1950g
Sigma 150-600S - 4.8"x11.4", 2860g

The 70-200L is a nice lens, but the focal length is a bit limiting
The 70-300DO is well-built and a nice form factor, but the image quality is not on par with the others.

I'm in the same boat as CDS. Tried to resist a long lens for as long as I could, it was futile.

300 simply cannot get a nice sun/moon image without a heavy crop. 400 barely gets you there, however, it does come with a price of size and weight.