Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
As a Rebel owner, looking at something longer than my current 24-105mm L, I'mdefinitelykeeping my eye on this lens. I'mdefinitelypart of their target market. I want image quality, reach, and I like my IS. Weight will be a concern too, as will be price. Below are my thoughts. If you think I'm missing some part of the equation, please, let me know.
I've thought of the 70-200mm f/4L IS and non-IS, and the 100-400mm L. I'm not sure 200mm will be long enough, asI was previously used to a super zoom P&Sequivalentto 36-432mm, and wanted more reach even then. f/4 isn't always going to be fast enough either, which rules out all these lenses as a single lens solution. I can't justify the price of 70-200mm f/2.8L without IS and limited reach, and can't afford the new 70-200mm f/2.8L with IS, and again, it's still got limited reach, IMO. I'm not sure about the 100-400mm because of weight, divided opinions on push-pull zoom, and that we're all expecting a sharper image from the new 70-300mm L, and the weaker IS unit. The 100-400mm is also a variable aperture lens, so that somewhat cancels out vs. the new 70-300mm L lens.
For me, it's looking like I need to consider a dual lens approach, with either the new 70-300mm L lens or the 100-400mm L AND a 200mm f/2.8L prime. Either way it's more reach than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, as well as cheaper. I get f/2.8 if I need it, though not as versatile, being only at one focal length, but in a nice light package. The combined weight of the 70-300mm L (37oz) and the 200mm L (27oz), is a bit more than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (52.6oz), but I'm not forced to carry both, and each will be a lighter option on-camera.
The new 70-300mm L lets me trade 100mm of the 100-400mm for less weight, better IS, likely better IQ... I'm not sure if it's a fair trade. I guess it will also depend on whether or not I hate push-pull zooming, having not tried it yet, I can't say.
Reply With Quote