Lense dilemma- your thoughts?

[gtirman]

I recently returned from overseas and vowed that my 70-200 2.8 L was simply too heavy to lug around in my camera bag along with other lenses.
Its a great lense but oh the weight !! With that in mind i thought i would look into buying the 70-200 F4 IS thus saving nearly half the weight and especially that i have another trip coming up soon [volcanoes, snow, deserts...Chile ]
The F4 is a great lense but it is expensive and whilst researching reviews i stumbled on reviews of the Canon 70-300 EF F4- 5.6 IS usm in which i have one sitting in a cupboard. [i think it was the kit lense with my 40 D ]
The reviews were quite impressive and some even saying that it was close to an L lense, good colour etc etc.....and it has 100 more reach which is a big bonus. It is smallish and light weight too.
I checked back on the images i took with it all those years ago and coudnt see that much difference with the 70-200 lense [standby for a flaming !! LOL ]
So my dilemma is....if i'm spending big bucks on this trip to go trekking in Chile i dont want to get there and say to my self "i wish i had of brought along the X lense"

What are your thoughts on this? What would you do?
"

[Cathus]

Personally, I think you'd be a mug to give up a 70-200 f2.8 & trade it for a 4.5 to 5.6 of any description. There is no way on God's earth that lens is going to come close to the 2.8.

I guess it depends on whether you want to trade in quality for convenience, if it were me, I'd leave the clothes at home, work out a bit more before the trip & take the lens.

[OldBoy]

It depends on the weather as regard which lens you take. If it's going to be bright and sunny most of the time then, you should be OK with the 70-300mm IS. If it's going to be cloudy and dullish the the 70-200mm F2.8 wins hands down. You don't say what other lenses you have and if you have a 2x converter for the 70-200mm. If you have a 2x converter then I'd be tempted to take that with the 70-200mm F2.8, as that would give you 400mm.

[gtirman]

Originally Posted by Cathus

Personally, I think you'd be a mug to give up a 70-200 f2.8 & trade it for a 4.5 to 5.6 of any description. There is no way on God's earth that lens is going to come close to the 2.8.
### according to the reviews it actually does.....a " sleeper" L lens they were saying...and i tend to believe it after comparing the images. Believe it or not !! LOL

I guess it depends on whether you want to trade in quality for convenience, if it were me, I'd leave the clothes at home,
## and freeze to death !!

work out a bit more before the trip
### That is simplfying it a bit me thinks. I am very fit as it is now however having a huge weight detracts from the pleasure a little.
& take the lens.

### maybe the 70-200 F4 is the way to go as i kill two birds with the one stone.

[gtirman]

Originally Posted by OldBoy

It depends on the weather as regard which lens you take. If it's going to be bright and sunny most of the time then, you should be OK with the 70-300mm IS. If it's going to be cloudy and dullish the the 70-200mm F2.8 wins hands down.
**** It will be very sunny and very dull overcast other times....very unpredictable.
Also i might add VERY windy at times too....not good trying to hold a KG+ lense eh?

You don't say what other lenses you have
### i would also take 11-16 WA 2.8, 17-55 2.8, 50D with backup 40D and a G11. [cameras do fail in extreme conditions ] plus batteries, food, tent etc etc...all on the back.

and if you have a 2x converter for the 70-200mm. If you have a 2x converter then I'd be tempted to take that with the 70-200mm F2.8, as that would give you 400mm.

### the above is actually adding MORE weight which i am tring to avoid and i am not a great fan of X2 converter. Maybe a 70-200 F4 IS with maybe a 1.4 converter could be a weight saving and a reach gain without losing too much picture quality.????

[KeithT]

Fast lenses are heavy lenses! Fast zoom lenses are really heavy. These lenses are not your usual carry-round lenses. A lot of photographers do though, and that's fine if you are built like a brick whatsit, but not for the average guy. I would consider using that lens for those trips where you had a special use for it, or if you were thinking of lightening up, go for the 70-200 F/4 L IS. The difference in weight is massive; from 1300 gms for the 2.8 down to 760 gms for the f4. You will have a slower lens, though very usable, without compromising the quality. I am personally going for the 70-300 f4 - 5.6 L which is under 6 inches long, has an incredible 4 stop image stabilisation and weighs 1050 gms, so reasonably easy to carry around, though I will do this separately in a hip pouch rather than in a shoulder bag.

[Cathus]

out of interest, are you proposing buying this as an additional lens or selling the 70-200 & replacing it?

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by gtirman

### the above is actually adding MORE weight which i am tring to avoid and i am not a great fan of X2 converter. Maybe a 70-200 F4 IS with maybe a 1.4 converter could be a weight saving and a reach gain without losing too much picture quality.????

I use my 2x converter with my 70-200mm F2.8 VR quite often, as it give me the reach if I need it without degrading the quality too much. I have a 400mm F2.8 which weighs 6kg and use that with 1.4 and 2x converters quite often also with great results.

As you state in your original post it's a once in a lifetime chance to get some cracking photos. If the Canon 70-300mm IS is as good as the Nikon version with VR then, I don't think you will have any problems, as long as the conditions are quite bright for most of the times.

[gtirman]

Originally Posted by KeithT

Fast lenses are heavy lenses! Fast zoom lenses are really heavy. These lenses are not your usual carry-round lenses. A lot of photographers do though, and that's fine if you are built like a brick whatsit, but not for the average guy. I would consider using that lens for those trips where you had a special use for it, or if you were thinking of lightening up, go for the 70-200 F/4 L IS. The difference in weight is massive; from 1300 gms for the 2.8 down to 760 gms for the f4. You will have a slower lens, though very usable, without compromising the quality. I am personally going for the 70-300 f4 - 5.6 L which is under 6 inches long, has an incredible 4 stop image stabilisation and weighs 1050 gms, so reasonably easy to carry around, though I will do this separately in a hip pouch rather than in a shoulder bag.

Nice one Keith....the 70-200 F4 IS is very attractive....and then so is the 70-300 you speak of....thanks for giving me the assurance that maybe i am thinking along the correct lines with flicking the 50 calibre weight of the 70-200 non IS and going other lenses. Thank you ! Good food for thought

[gtirman]

Originally Posted by Cathus

out of interest, are you proposing buying this as an additional lens or selling the 70-200 & replacing it?

For economy sake...i'd have to sell the 70-200 2.8 to replace it :{
I love this lense however after a 50 kilometre daily trek i loathe it !!