Which Canon Zoom tele for topside?

I upgraded to the 18-135mm kit lens when I switched to a 7D, but I need a real lens and a bit longer. I'm used to the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8, but then again Nikon didn't have a high quality zoom that reached from medium to 300mm, at least until recently.

I'm looking at the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 or the 28-300mm 3.5-5.6mm. I know the 70-200mm is good glass, but I wonder how good the 28-300mm is at the long end. It an L lens which means nothing to me. It costs over $2000, which means something to me, yet it's only a 5.6 at the long end. Which do I want, say shooting from a boat or on land at things far away, sometimes moving, sometimes not?

I upgraded to the 18-135mm kit lens when I switched to a 7D, but I need a real lens and a bit longer. I'm used to the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8, but then again Nikon didn't have a high quality zoom that reached from medium to 300mm, at least until recently.

 

I'm looking at the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 or the 28-300mm 3.5-5.6mm. I know the 70-200mm is good glass, but I wonder how good the 28-300mm is at the long end. It an L lens which means nothing to me. It costs over $2000, which means something to me, yet it's only a 5.6 at the long end. Which do I want, say shooting from a boat or on land at things far away, sometimes moving, sometimes not?

You could go back to Nikon and get the new 28-300 for $1100. Nice lens BTW

Or you could take a look at the 70 -200 f4 L. Arguably the sharpest of the Canon 70-200 class, non IS, lighter for travel and makes a great topside boat lens. Won't completely empty the bank account either. I'm curious about the new 70-300L, but it's not really out yet.

Good luck,

Steve

i'd recommend the 70-200 f4, but the new 70-300 is interesting, -- but i expect to be continuing with my trusty 100-400 although i use it on both the 7D and 5D2. i use the 100-400 for a boat lens and rarely find it too long even on crop frame, and i think IS is very desirable for a boat lens

The Canon 70-300mm IS got pretty good reviews at Photozone, even though its a 'normal' lens. They gave it a higher rating for optical quality than the 28-300mm, but its less flexible obviously. If I replace it, it will probably be with the 100-400mm.

Otara

Or you could take a look at the 70 -200 f4 L. Arguably the sharpest of the Canon 70-200 class, non IS, lighter for travel and makes a great topside boat lens. Won't completely empty the bank account either. I'm curious about the new 70-300L, but it's not really out yet.

 

Good luck,

Steve

Hi steve - have you tried the 70-200 f2.8 II yet? I had both that and f4 version with me in Africa last summer. No comparison really. My f4 version is now for sale. 70-200 2.8 II is pretty amazing. Even with 1.4 teleconverter.

Hi steve - have you tried the 70-200 f2.8 II yet? I had both that and f4 version with me in Africa last summer. No comparison really. My f4 version is now for sale. 70-200 2.8 II is pretty amazing. Even with 1.4 teleconverter.

Hi Stephen,

I haven't used the new 70-200 f2.8 II yet so I humbly bow to your experience. I was basing my statement on the reviews I read on Photozone and my limited experience with three of the 70-200 versions on cropped cameras. I guess I should have said the sharpest 70-200 for the money as George seemed to be concerned with spending upwards of $2000. I can sure see how an African trip or two would make it worth the difference though. Hey maybe George can buy your f/4.

Cheers,

Steve

I'll second Stephen's assertion on the 70-200L II. I dumped my older Mk I for it and haven't looked back. The new 70-300L looks great on MTF.

I had the 28-300. It's a compromise for versatility over image quality if you have one body. It's also one heavy lens. The push/pull design takes getting use to. Imagewise it's not very spectacular, with lots of barrel distortion at the short end and so so sharpness on the long end in the corners. It's pretty good in the center.

I've found using the 24-105 + 70-300 DO weighs and costs less than the 28-300L, plus I don't have to deal with the push/pull zoom which is a bit of a pain. I have 2 bodies so I just switch cameras. The DO doesn't have as nice bokeh but is really compact and light.

What sort of length do you want?300mm on APS-C or FF? 70-200 on a crop is a nice spot for everything up but birding and land safaris.

if you're satisfied with the 18-135mm kit lens, a 70-200mm is too much overlap, and really not much longer. get the 100-400mm, i hear its quite good. Optically, I'd place it somewhere between the pro glass like a 70-200mm or super tele prime and cheap consumer glass like the 70-300's. I own nikon and have a 80-400mm and i hear the canon 100-400 is better.

The 28-300mm is crap by my standards. I used to shoot with it for a newspaper, and its great for journalism, but would never buy that lens myself. Consumer level optics. You pay for the huge zoom range and ability to use as a self defense weapon (which comes in handy for a PJ).

I really think the 100-400mm would serve you best if you want some length. The next step up is 70-200mm + super tele prime (300/2.8 etc) which is where i'm at now, having retired my much loved 80-400mm. Cheers,

Chris

I have a 100-400 and it's also, as Drew says, a compromise IMO. It's fairly sharp in good light but the push/pull does take some getting used to. I'll use it when I need more reach than my 70-200 but don't want to lug my 300/2.8 or 400/2.8. I do like using it on a boat though for some reason. It's my go-to lens for shooting sailing. That said it doesn't get much use compared to my other glass.

Personally I think if you don't own a 70-200/2.8 I'd get one. For me that's a standard, must have lens. It's great by itself and also works very well with a 1.4 converter. Yeah it's kind of big compared to the f4 version but you get what you pay for, both in terms of cost and weight. Top side I can shoot 90% of my assignments with a 16-35 and a 70-200. Both are standards IMO.

I bugged a few pros about which lens to get and I ended up with the 70-200 f2.8 L II along with the 1.4 & 2 converters. Great results even in my unskilled hands!

Listen to the pros....my two cents.

Mike

If you must have f2.8 AND 300, try the Sigma 120-300 2.8. I had this lens for awhile before it was stolen. It's very sharp (although as always with Sigma, you should test a few copies and choose the sharpest one) even wide open. With APS-C sensors, it's 95% of the Canon 70-200L IS Mk I in sharpness and contrast. I never replaced it only because I wanted better weather sealing. I shoot dolphins, whales etc from small boats and sometimes the boat gets splashed etc. I also don't like the weight. But it is an awesome lens with that focal length.

Funny enough, I just saw a paparazzi with that lens yesterday which reminded me of how nice it is.

Also remember that the EF 1.4/2x III extenders will be out soon and they are supposed to be much better than the Mk II.