Finding the 70-200mm a bit cramped after moving to full frame

I'm finding my 70-200mm F4 L IS a bit cramped on the 5D MkIII. It's a significantly different beast on full frame than on crop. Just wondering what people thought of the 70-300L on full frame? I've gone through so many threads that my head is spinning  Worthy upgrade or would one be better of saving for a 2.8 with a TC?

I could do that but just worried about the added bulk of that beastie - not to mention that I don't like the idea of pointing a large lens like that around. Primarily shooting landscapes, nightscapes (on tripod), street photography, and some portraits. Probably 40% of my shots have been with the 70-200mm but I have quite often missed that extra reach the crop gave. Have not been able to check the big lens out as none of the dealers on this side of the country stock anything above the F4 variants but I will be in NYC this Christmas and may upgrade then. Would love to hear your thoughts. Does it really seem that much bigger and heavier when kept in a sling most of the time?

Will be a shame to let it go though. Turned out to be a nice combo for some deep sky stuff on my 7D. But then again the low light performance of the MkIII could me the 70-300 perform just as well or better. Here's a couple from the older non-is F4.

T

M31 - Andromeda

M45 - The Pleiades

Many thanks for the reply Carl. Just the input I was looking for.
I've been leaning more in that direction than the 2.8 after reading up some. Plus if I need a wee bit more reach I could always have the 7d along with me as well. Will probably just hang on to the 85mm for the occasional portrait.
Always good to be able to lighten the camera bag a bit.
Thanks again
Trev

1trev27 wrote:

I'm finding my 70-200mm F4 L IS a bit cramped on the 5D MkIII.

Probably 40% of my shots have been with the 70-200mm but I have quite often missed that extra reach the crop gave.

Get a 1.4x TC III.  Problem solved.

wazu wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

1trev27 wrote:

I'm finding my 70-200mm F4 L IS a bit cramped on the 5D MkIII.

Probably 40% of my shots have been with the 70-200mm but I have quite often missed that extra reach the crop gave.

Get a 1.4x TC III. Problem solved.

The better solution is to upgrade to the 70-200/2.8 and then add the 1.4x TC III. Way better than 70-300L. IMO.

That's the first time I've heard that. It may be better, but way better? I doubt it.

The 70-300L works great for me, the added reach over my previous 70-200F4IS is welcome, and it has very similar IQ. Just a bit slower is all.

also sold my f4 IS for the 70-300L IS.  perfect for close in wildlife and longer landscapes.

Many thanks for all the input guys. I think I'm leaning towards the 70-300 L . If I need speed in a telephoto I can always grab a 135 F2 in the future and a 1.4x TC - an option I hadn't thought of before.

Going to try both lenses (70-300 & 70-200 2.8 II) in B&H when I'm there in a couple of weeks.

T

ed rader wrote:

also sold my f4 IS for the 70-300L IS. perfect for close in wildlife and longer landscapes.

+1. Great lens thought the f4 IS is, I find the 70-300 L just so much more useful.

Yes , FF is not long enough , but is wide enough . It just costs a lot more to go wide or long on FF .

wazu wrote:

stratobill wrote:

wazu wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

1trev27 wrote:

I'm finding my 70-200mm F4 L IS a bit cramped on the 5D MkIII.

Probably 40% of my shots have been with the 70-200mm but I have quite often missed that extra reach the crop gave.

Get a 1.4x TC III. Problem solved.

The better solution is to upgrade to the 70-200/2.8 and then add the 1.4x TC III. Way better than 70-300L. IMO.

That's the first time I've heard that. It may be better, but way better? I doubt it.

The 70-300L works great for me, the added reach over my previous 70-200F4IS is welcome, and it has very similar IQ. Just a bit slower is all.

speed and versatility, the only advantsge to the 70-300L is size/weight and an extra 20mm at the long end.

with the 70-200/2.8 + 1.4 you get a 70-200/2,8 a 100-280/4 or add a 2xTC and get 140-400/5.6 (same speed as the 70-300 but with 100mm more reach) what's not way better?

I have not tried that combination, but the usual questions about a TC combo would be: slower focusing, reduced IQ, more unwieldy operation, and heavier weight.

You may say that none of those are a problem, and you might be right. As I say, I have not tried that combo. And you are right, there is a lot to like about it.

But I will stick to my original statement that "way better" than an integrated lens is a bit suspect, that's all. Many would prefer the single lens for a lot of reasons.

stratobill wrote:

wazu wrote:

stratobill wrote:

wazu wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

1trev27 wrote:

I'm finding my 70-200mm F4 L IS a bit cramped on the 5D MkIII.

Probably 40% of my shots have been with the 70-200mm but I have quite often missed that extra reach the crop gave.

Get a 1.4x TC III. Problem solved.

The better solution is to upgrade to the 70-200/2.8 and then add the 1.4x TC III. Way better than 70-300L. IMO.

That's the first time I've heard that. It may be better, but way better? I doubt it.

The 70-300L works great for me, the added reach over my previous 70-200F4IS is welcome, and it has very similar IQ. Just a bit slower is all.

speed and versatility, the only advantsge to the 70-300L is size/weight and an extra 20mm at the long end.

with the 70-200/2.8 + 1.4 you get a 70-200/2,8 a 100-280/4 or add a 2xTC and get 140-400/5.6 (same speed as the 70-300 but with 100mm more reach) what's not way better?

I have not tried that combination, but the usual questions about a TC combo would be: slower focusing, reduced IQ, more unwieldy operation, and heavier weight.

You may say that none of those are a problem, and you might be right. As I say, I have not tried that combo. And you are right, there is a lot to like about it.

But I will stick to my original statement that "way better" than an integrated lens is a bit suspect, that's all. Many would prefer the single lens for a lot of reasons.

I use that system, after using the non-L 70-300, and "way better" is an understatement.  Just the ability to go to f/2.8 is really great, not to mention the longer focal length of 400mm.