(100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography

Started May 9, 2013 | Discussions
Shilpaksphotography
New MemberPosts: 6
Like?
(100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
May 9, 2013

i have recently bought a 7d and only have the 18-135 that came with the body. i know this question has been done to death but i have only always found a 100 - 400mm compared to either 70-200+1.4/2x or 300 4L+1.4. but im an avid (albeit amateur) wildlife photographer. what would be a better addition to my lens collection in the long run (i intend to upgrade to a full frame at some point much later) especially considering most of the wildlife/safari photography is done in low light conditions (at dawn/ dusk)
70-200 + 300 f/4 + 1.4x/ 2x 
100-400mm +1.4x/2x
i understand the budgets for these two would be a little different but that's not a constraint unless it makes more sense to buy the 100 - 400 for now and save the rest for a 400 2.8 or 500 4 prime. 
please advise.
shilpa

Canon EOS 7D
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Myer
Senior MemberPosts: 2,653
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to Shilpaksphotography, May 9, 2013

What type of wildlife photography do you do?

Birds from a boardwalk?

Wildlife from a roadside using a tripod?

Hiking and shootibg wildlife on the go?

Right now I'm using a T2i.

I'm getting on and will be 69 this month. I'm not as steady as I used to be. I also go on hiking trips to national parks that have a fair amount of wildlife.

I used a 55-250 because it's very light. However, I found that at a reasonable distance the wuality dropped way down. It also front-focused and would cost more than the lens is worth to adjust.

I tried to carry and used the 100-400 and decided I couldn't. I tried the 70-300L and decided I could carry and used it. Handheld.

I've spent a couple of complete days at a wetlands park near my house shooting birds and a few gators.

If you'll be on the move without a tripod you have to make sure you can carry and use it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ammac12
Regular MemberPosts: 212
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to Myer, May 10, 2013

I understand  your dilemma.  The question you should ask  yourself is which lens will get more use most often?  I recently switched to FF and my zoom is the 70-200 f4.  I have a hiking trip planned for this July and know I need more reach.  However, my normal use doesn't require 400mm zoom.  Therefore, I plan to rent for the week (a 100-400L).  I may add that lens down the road.  But, I feel the 70-200 will suffice the majority of my needs.  Which is better?  I posed the question and got multiple responses.  Everyone has their opinion.  The answer is subjective.

Any lens in the caliber you've mentioned is an investment.  Purchase the package that gives you the widest variety to start and then build.  You can always rent and try or just rent for a special occasion.  Personally, I think you would get more mileage out of a 70-200 + a tele.  Clearly the f2.8 is faster and more versatile, but costs a metric ton more.  With the f4 and a 2x tele, you run the concern of speedy AF.  If the subject is still, there is nothing wrong with that setup.  I tested that arrangement at my local camera shop and even the pro's were impressed.  With a 1.4x, you get out to 280 and that's not that much reach. Tradeoff's kill this decision making process.  I know, because I'm expressing my personal thoughts and concerns.

If funds are no issue, spring for the 70-200 f2.8 + 2xIII tele.  If/when you upgrade to FF, this combo will come in very handy.  The 70-200 will be much more versatile around town.  I'm no pro, but have spent countless hours reviewing and debating the same needs.  Hope this helps.

Good luck.

adam

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
R2D2
Forum ProPosts: 14,747Gear list
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to Shilpaksphotography, May 10, 2013

Shilpaksphotography wrote:

i have recently bought a 7d and only have the 18-135 that came with the body. i know this question has been done to death but i have only always found a 100 - 400mm compared to either 70-200+1.4/2x or 300 4L+1.4. but im an avid (albeit amateur) wildlife photographer. what would be a better addition to my lens collection in the long run (i intend to upgrade to a full frame at some point much later) especially considering most of the wildlife/safari photography is done in low light conditions (at dawn/ dusk)
70-200 + 300 f/4 + 1.4x/ 2x 
100-400mm +1.4x/2x
i understand the budgets for these two would be a little different but that's not a constraint unless it makes more sense to buy the 100 - 400 for now and save the rest for a 400 2.8 or 500 4 prime. 
please advise.
shilpa

400 f5.6L for birds and "distant" wildlife.

300 f4L IS for close birds and wildlife, and for low light.

This combo outperforms the 100-400 in virtually every aspect (except maybe sheer Fun).

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 R2D2's gear list:R2D2's gear list
Canon EOS 650D Canon EOS 70D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lightandday
Regular MemberPosts: 140Gear list
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to Shilpaksphotography, May 10, 2013

G'day,

I have a 5D Mk2 and use 70-200 f4 L IS +1.4 TC which I love ( I need to stalk small birds ).This combination with a 7D would give you a bit more reach i.e.420mm.

The event of modern sensors and use of higher ISO's has deminished the need for large apertures but the 70-200 f2.8 + 1.4 TC has a benefit when using Autofocus when compared to the f4 version .

The weight of the 70-200 f4 +1.4TC is so light and can be hand held in normal daylight conditions ( Shutter speed allowing )

The 100-400 has been called a vacum cleaner due to the push/pull zoom so if your heading off to Namibia it's not for you .

As far as the 300 4L +1.4 TC I cannot comment except no Zoom ,cost ? ,size?,weight ?seals?

I understand you dilemia - - BUY A 1D-X and 500mm f4 L IS Mk11 - but don't tell your partner !

 lightandday's gear list:lightandday's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:1.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kevin Jorgensen
Contributing MemberPosts: 745Gear list
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to R2D2, May 10, 2013

R2D2 wrote:

Shilpaksphotography wrote:

i have recently bought a 7d and only have the 18-135 that came with the body. i know this question has been done to death but i have only always found a 100 - 400mm compared to either 70-200+1.4/2x or 300 4L+1.4. but im an avid (albeit amateur) wildlife photographer. what would be a better addition to my lens collection in the long run (i intend to upgrade to a full frame at some point much later) especially considering most of the wildlife/safari photography is done in low light conditions (at dawn/ dusk)
70-200 + 300 f/4 + 1.4x/ 2x 
100-400mm +1.4x/2x
i understand the budgets for these two would be a little different but that's not a constraint unless it makes more sense to buy the 100 - 400 for now and save the rest for a 400 2.8 or 500 4 prime. 
please advise.
shilpa

400 f5.6L for birds and "distant" wildlife.

300 f4L IS for close birds and wildlife, and for low light.

This combo outperforms the 100-400 in virtually every aspect (except maybe sheer Fun).

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

I'd like to see you go from 300 to 400 in less than 2 seconds!

I have the 70-200f2.8L IS II and the 100-400f4.5-5.6L IS and am satisfied with both. I also have the 1.4 II extender but have no need for it

apart from the occasional moon shot as below. I used it on my 70-200f4L IS and wasn't impressed. You read a lot of crap about the 100-400 but its usually by people who don't own one. I have the trinity of Canon 2.8 II zooms but my 100-400 is my preferred walkaround lens. I, like you, am also thinking a 400f2.8 or 500f4.

 Kevin Jorgensen's gear list:Kevin Jorgensen's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Shilpaksphotography
New MemberPosts: 6
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to Kevin Jorgensen, May 10, 2013

to give you some more clarity, i prefer shooting larger mammals than birds; when you go on a jungle safari around south india its mostly bisons, deers, tiger (the whole intent of me picking up photography was to shoot this at somepoint in my life :P) and i do want to use this set for some african safaris (may rent out the 2.8/4 400/500/600 for this specific trip if i havent bought it by then yet) in the future. birds are only a "if i happen to see them anywhere or during a safari, then will shoot them".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rebel99
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,068
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to Kevin Jorgensen, May 10, 2013

Kevin Jorgensen wrote:

I'd like to see you go from 300 to 400 in less than 2 seconds!

I have the 70-200f2.8L IS II and the 100-400f4.5-5.6L IS and am satisfied with both. I also have the .4 II extender but have no need for it

apart from the occasional moon shot as below. I used it on my 70-200f4L IS and wasn't impressed. You read a lot of crap about the 100-400 but its usually by people who don't own one. I have the trinity of Canon 2.8 II zooms but my 100-400 is my preferred walkaround lens. I, like you, am also thinking a 400f2.8 or 500f4.

actually, 100-400 is good versatile lens, can be used for general purpose as well! i have a 400mm f5.6 that i use exclusively for birding for a while now, although a very sharp and fast focusing prime, but i find it bare minimum reach for that purpose. the new canon tc 1.4xIII helps somewhat but not a panacea. for birding you get the longest FL you can afford. i have just ordered a canon 600mm f4 II and a 1Dx camera that will be waiting for me when i come home from my trip overseas in a couple weeks and i can hardly wait now that plus new canon tc 1.4xIII/2.0x III (which i have both) should give me plenty of reach to those feathered critters

cheerz.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
phill104
Senior MemberPosts: 1,482
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to Shilpaksphotography, May 10, 2013

I currently own both a 100-400 and a 70-200 F2.8 IS II. While the 70-200 is an absolutely superb lens it lacks the versatility of the 100-400. I've found for the kind of wildlife I shoot that the versatility is important.

The 100-400 has a great minimum focus distance of 1.8 meters so if you are getting close to creatures it is fantastic. The 400mm end despite some reports on here mainly by pixel peepers is superb and the IS while being an older version still does a great job. Another plus is that when packed in a bag it takes up very little room (same space as the 70-200) so when walking about or travelling you can leave it attached which is a real boon.

The 70-200 without extender does pick up more detail in low light situations but there is not too much in it TBH. Yes, a 400mm F2.8 or 300mm F2.8 might be sharper but do you really want to lug that around all over the place? Knowing a lot of keen amateur wildlife photographers who own big glass all say their best shots are often from smaller more versatile zooms simply because they can be more mobile.

And please, do not listen to all the vacuum cleaner type posts on the 100-400. I have used mine in some very harsh dusty and windy conditions when doing windsurfing photography and 6 years of use has seen almost no dust whatsoever inside my lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Shilpaksphotography
New MemberPosts: 6
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to phill104, May 10, 2013

Thank you everyone, guess my vote goes to the 100 - 400 as an immediate buy. i will buy the 70-200 at some point later (it seems like a good general walk around lens) and save up to buy a 400 2.8 or a 500 4 at some point.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steve Balcombe
Forum ProPosts: 10,730
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to Shilpaksphotography, May 10, 2013

Shilpaksphotography wrote:

... im an avid (albeit amateur) wildlife photographer. what would be a better addition to my lens collection in the long run (i intend to upgrade to a full frame at some point much later) especially considering most of the wildlife/safari photography is done in low light conditions (at dawn/ dusk)
70-200 + 300 f/4 + 1.4x/ 2x 
100-400mm +1.4x/2x

The first thing to say is forget about full frame. You can't make a sensible buying decision for your current camera based on something you may or may not possibly do at some unknown point far in the future. In any case, to get any benefit from a 1.6x bigger sensor you have to use a 1.6x bigger lens - so for example you'll have to replace your 300/4 with a 500/4. Full frame for wildlife is a huge investment and a bit of a challenge to carry around too.

Extenders are something of a double-edged sword. People see them as a very cheap way to get more reach but that's only telling half the story. You haven't actually made your lens any bigger - you are trading focal length for f-number, losing one stop with the 1.4x and two stops with a 2x. With all but the very best lenses (and I mean the big whites, not the 300/4 or 100-400) there is a noticeable loss of image quality, practically forcing you to stop down even further to maintain sharpness. This is just about ok with the 1.4x on the 300/4, as you get a 420/5.6 which has decent IQ when stopped down to f/8 - fine in good light. But the 1.4x on the 100-400L is marginal, and the 2x is much worse.

i understand the budgets for these two would be a little different but that's not a constraint unless it makes more sense to buy the 100 - 400 for now and save the rest for a 400 2.8 or 500 4 prime.

That's the right way to think about it. I actually had the 300/4 plus 1.4x for a long time, before investing in a 300/2.8L MkII with both Extenders earlier this year. Slightly different lens choices for my particular needs, but the same principle.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
R2D2
Forum ProPosts: 14,747Gear list
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to Kevin Jorgensen, May 10, 2013

Kevin Jorgensen wrote:

I'd like to see you go from 300 to 400 in less than 2 seconds!

LOL, that moon isn't going very far in two seconds!

You read a lot of crap about the 100-400 but its usually by people who don't own one.

I own both primes and shoot with the 1-4 on a regular basis (a great copy BTW), so what I've posted is not CRAP.

The zoom is a Very fun lens (still on my own short list), but the primes are simply sharper, faster, and better focusing.  I almost always prefer the greater capabilities vs the convenience (for what I shoot).

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 R2D2's gear list:R2D2's gear list
Canon EOS 650D Canon EOS 70D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jaegg
New MemberPosts: 4Gear list
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to Steve Balcombe, May 10, 2013

Hi,

I am in a similar decision process - thanks for that interesting threat – and one thought/question more.

Starting with a crop EOS and the 70-300 Non L, today I am shooting full frame (5D, 6D) with a 70-200 4L IS. I am interested in nature and hike a lot (daytrips). So size and weight in general is an issue for me.
With my old combo (Crop camera, 70-300) I did safaris in South Africa and Tansania. Also that a lot of the shoots I’ve done there had been at the long end, I want to stay with a zoom on the 6D.
As I realized on my last trip (Costa Rica) 70-200 4L IS with a Canon 1.4 converter is not a convincible solution on a full frame. Especially in critical contrast light situations the results are insufficient. Furthermore I miss reach, and had to crop the pictures a lot, which reduces quality even more.
In summer, we plan a trip to Namibia and Botswana.
The answer looks obivious – add the 100 – 400 L to the 70-200 4L.
The-digital-picture.com bring up some doubts about that, as they argue the 70-300L as an alternative solution, instead of the 100-400.
That looks pretty attractive for me: only one light lens to carry, modern lens concept with up to date IS.
What´s your opinion ?
Best regards
Stefan

 jaegg's gear list:jaegg's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon Extender EF 1.4x II +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Kevin Jorgensen
Contributing MemberPosts: 745Gear list
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to R2D2, May 10, 2013

R2D2 wrote:

Kevin Jorgensen wrote:

I'd like to see you go from 300 to 400 in less than 2 seconds!

LOL, that moon isn't going very far in two seconds!

You read a lot of crap about the 100-400 but its usually by people who don't own one.

I own both primes and shoot with the 1-4 on a regular basis (a great copy BTW), so what I've posted is not CRAP.

The zoom is a Very fun lens (still on my own short list), but the primes are simply sharper, faster, and better focusing.  I almost always prefer the greater capabilities vs the convenience (for what I shoot).

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

''You read a lot of crap about the 100-400 but its usually by people who don't own one.''

So you shoot with a 100-400? Do you own one?

 Kevin Jorgensen's gear list:Kevin Jorgensen's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tonyjr
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,156Gear list
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to Shilpaksphotography, May 10, 2013

I went the 70-200 mk II +2 X III . Reason was 100-400 was ready for upgrade - still is .

 tonyjr's gear list:tonyjr's gear list
Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
R2D2
Forum ProPosts: 14,747Gear list
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to Kevin Jorgensen, May 10, 2013

Kevin Jorgensen wrote:

''You read a lot of crap about the 100-400 but its usually by people who don't own one.''

So you shoot with a 100-400? Do you own one?

Boy, your reasoning is 100% right on.  I shoot one (several actually) but don't own one.

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 R2D2's gear list:R2D2's gear list
Canon EOS 650D Canon EOS 70D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Luther T
New MemberPosts: 12Gear list
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to rebel99, May 10, 2013

rebel99 wrote:

actually, 100-400 is good versatile lens, can be used for general purpose as well! i have a 400mm f5.6 that i use exclusively for birding for a while now, although a very sharp and fast focusing prime, but i find it bare minimum reach for that purpose. the new canon tc 1.4xIII helps somewhat but not a panacea. for birding you get the longest FL you can afford. i have just ordered a canon 600mm f4 II and a 1Dx camera that will be waiting for me when i come home from my trip overseas in a couple weeks and i can hardly wait now that plus new canon tc 1.4xIII/2.0x III (which i have both) should give me plenty of reach to those feathered critters

cheerz.

Sorry for the thread drift, but I have a question.  Will the 1.4x TC III work with the 100-400 without taping contacts?  I was/am under the impression that AF won't work.

-- hide signature --

Luke

 Luther T's gear list:Luther T's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX10 IS Canon EOS 7D Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to Shilpaksphotography, May 10, 2013

Shilpaksphotography wrote:

i have recently bought a 7d and only have the 18-135 that came with the body. i know this question has been done to death but i have only always found a 100 - 400mm compared to either 70-200+1.4/2x or 300 4L+1.4. but im an avid (albeit amateur) wildlife photographer. what would be a better addition to my lens collection in the long run (i intend to upgrade to a full frame at some point much later) especially considering most of the wildlife/safari photography is done in low light conditions (at dawn/ dusk)
70-200 + 300 f/4 + 1.4x/ 2x 
100-400mm +1.4x/2x
i understand the budgets for these two would be a little different but that's not a constraint unless it makes more sense to buy the 100 - 400 for now and save the rest for a 400 2.8 or 500 4 prime. 
please advise.
shilpa

Usually it's hit with TC no matter from which lenses, more or less. The better lenses (usually those super tele prime), better with TCs. Among your list for wildlife purposes at 400mm from respective of AF speed, optical quality and sharpness, 100-400L > 300L+1.4x TC > 200L II + 2.0x TC. I am sure for the 1st and 3rd setup as I own both not quite sure on 2nd set but with a TC in compromise in general. I will not be surprised that a bare 300L/4.0 > 70-200L II + 1.4x TC.  300L/2.8 IS II or I that works best with TC is a very different animal and likely beats all others at 400mm side.

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Renier1
New MemberPosts: 3Gear list
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to qianp2k, May 10, 2013

Looking at this line up the best option for versatility and quality will be the 70-300L. I have all those lenses and bought the 70-300L for my wife on her 7D for a Kruger Park trip last year. The pictures she got would not have been possible with any of the other lenses other than the 70-200 and 300 without TC in their respective range. While not giving you the reach of the 400 but the image quality is much better. The lens is small and performs well. The 7D has enough usable ISO range to work with the smaller aperture.

 Renier1's gear list:Renier1's gear list
Canon PowerShot G11 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Like?
Re: (100 - 400) or (70-200 2.8 + 300 4L+ 1.4x III/ 2x III) for wildlife photography
In reply to Renier1, May 10, 2013

Renier1 wrote:

Looking at this line up the best option for versatility and quality will be the 70-300L. I have all those lenses and bought the 70-300L for my wife on her 7D for a Kruger Park trip last year. The pictures she got would not have been possible with any of the other lenses other than the 70-200 and 300 without TC in their respective range. While not giving you the reach of the 400 but the image quality is much better. The lens is small and performs well. The 7D has enough usable ISO range to work with the smaller aperture.

Yes I'd agree with that 70-300L is the best compromise but it's not mentioned in OP's title. It's still relative small/light but its IQ is as good as 70-200L/4.0 IS in 70-200mm range but with extra 100mm reach. 100-400L is an old lens, pretty good but not stellar and only slightly lighter than 70-200L II but still heavy/big. 70-200L/2.8 IS II is great lens but it's pretty bulky. I'd buy 70-300L if start from scratch but it's not available in Dec 2007 when I bought 70-200L/4.0 IS.

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads