help with choosing a telephoto...

[Kayaker72]

Helping others spend their money...that's what we do here at the TDP forums

I like your plan, with one exception. If you are indoors, the 100-400 is probably not the lens that you want. I believe Neuro recommended the 200 f/2 L IS. Depending on which event you are going too and how close you are to the action, the 300 f/2.8, 135 f/2 L or even the 85 f/1.8 may be good options. It would be something to play around with, how close are you to the action, and then find the right lens.

I haven't yet played with the 5D3. Maybe, if the 5D3 is as good at ISO 6400 or 12,800 as some have said, maybe you could use the 100-400L indoors. But that is something I'd want to test out first. Since f/5.6 lets the same amount of light hit the sensor all every focal length, you could use your current gear, set it at f/5.6 and f/8 and go to a stadium or similarly lit indoor area, and test out if you need more light or if you would be satisfied with the results.

[jrw]

if you do head out to an arena to check things out be sure to save your files in both RAW and JPEG. The JPEG conversion of the 5D3 just keeps amazing me for how clean it is. It is also on the JPEGs that Canon was able to claim 2 stops of ISO improvement. Just try it, you might like it!

[thekingb]

Just a quick plug for the 70 – 300 L. I use that lens extensively on my 7D, and the image quality is fantastic. It doesn't matter if it's 70 mm or 300 mm or anywhere in between, it's fantastic. However, everyone is correct to point out that it is a "slow "lens. It is not so useful indoors with any moving subjects, but the image stabilization is excellent and works well with stationary subjects indoors.

[conropl]

Renting a fast prime (200mm or 300mm) for the olympics seems like it would not be versital enough. The athletes or action will not be stationary (move closer and farther away), and your distance from the action from event to event is going to be unpredictable. So it seems to me a zoom is needed to cover a wider range of distances from the action that you are likely to encounter. Personally, I would go for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and resort to the 1.4X converter outdoors if you need more reach (more reach may not be needed indoors).

I have the 24-105 and 100-400, and neither is likely to be good indoors (as others have stated as well). And if they are not good indoors, then I doubt the 70-300L would be any good either.

Given a choice (money not an object), can anyone here seriously say they would pick a 24-100L, 70-300L, or the 100-400L over the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ???? I know they all have different uses, but if I could only get one lens... it would be the 70-200 II if I had the money.