Philadd Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Just recently upgraded from a 7D to a 5D mark iii. Also picked up the 24-70 2.8 mark ii and kept my 50mm 1.4 as I take a lot of indoor shots of kids.

Just sold the 7D and my 17-55 2.8 on eBay so I have a little more cash burning a hole in my pocket. Would like to go ahead and finish out the focal range so I'm interested to hear what you folks might have to say about what I should be looking at for the wider and longer ends. I'll probably go longer first and then wider later depending upon how much I spend on the longer zoom.

cosmo54 Loc: Easton, PA but will travel for photos

70-200 .... One of my favorite ...I have the f2.8 & it's almost always on my 5diii

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

70-200 f/2.8. My favorite lens.

Philadd Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Two more questions.
1) Are the 70-200 f2.8 and f4 comparable in terms of image quality? Obviously, the 2.8 is the faster better lens for low light but I'd be lying if I said I didn't like the smaller and lighter feel of the f4.

2) Are the canon lenses really that much better than the comparable focal lengths offered by the other manufacturers. I've never gone this route but I am open to it if it makes sense.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Philadd - I'd read the four 70-200 reviews from Bryan Carnathan at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-Lens-Reviews.aspx . The lenses have differences but the F/4 non IS consistently holds its own against the others ...

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I do not know from personal experience but I have read a few reports recently about the new Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 being very good and significantly cheaper.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-70-200mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Lens-Review.aspx


And at the wide end - the Canon 17-40mm L is a very well respected option at about half the price of the Canon 16-35mm.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Phil

Phil, the only Canon 70-200 sharper than the non IS f4 is the new mkll. So if you don't need the speed, the f4 is super small and light. Pros that pack long distances use them to save weight and pack more lenses.
If you need the speed, by all means, the 2.8 is the Canon workhorse of the pros.
I personally have not needed to speed. For indoor sports, I shoot faster primes.

On quality, there was recently a post, possibly titled, "do you get what you pay for". The pros and cons where debated at length, look for that post.
There are 3rd party lenses that are sharper, but for me, few to none are actually better, and I stick to Canon.
Phil, as CHG said, go to "the digital picture", and read all his reviews on any lens he has tested, and there are lots. He is one of the few testers that is both lab and real world, and thorough.
Good luck. ;-)
SS

Cameoblue Loc: British Columbia Canada

70-200 L either 2.8 IS or non-IS or F4 are all great lens and with proper light all have excellent IQ. You have an excellent camera (same as what I have) and the camera itself works wonders in lower light situations so do not be afraid of the F4. I personally have the 700-200 2.8L and also the 100-400L, I find that I consistently grab the 100-400L more often because of the extra reach (being the 5D3 is a full frame). IQ on the 100-400L is absolutely great but if there is a shot that I absolutely need to turn out well, well then I grab the 70-200L. It is almost impossible to shot a bad shot with it, the only issue is it weighs a ton. My friend has the F4 and its weight is just about perfect and like I said image quality is exactly what one would expect from an "L" lens.

If I was to do it over I think I would go with the F4 or 2.8 non-IS just because of the weight difference. I guess it all depends on what you want to use it for and for how long you will be holding the equipment at one time.

You ask about "L" lens vs other brands. "L" lens are made specifically for the Canon camera by the people who make the Canon camera, they are the experts. The lenses cost more simply because they are worth it.

Your 5D3 cost a small fortune why would you even consider lowering its superior quality but trying to save a few bucks? You did not buy your camera to take nice shots, or good enough shots, you bought it to take the best shot. Am I right?

Philadd Loc: Phoenix, AZ

You are correct! Image quality is paramount. Just trying to be open minded in case there is anything else out there that might rival the IQ of the "L"s.

amehta Loc: Boston

While the IQ of a non-IS lens is comparable to the IQ of an IS lens, I think IS is important as part of the overall result. It won't be used all the time, but when it's appropriate, it can really help make a shot "work".

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

$1000 cheaper and are you really sacrificing IQ that you will see in the field?

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2013/02/lens-test-tamron-70-200mm-f28-di-vc-usd

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

The 70-200mm lenses are all good lenses. Which one you pick depends on what you like to shoot. Most of us own one.

Again depending on what you shoot, the Canon 400mm f5.6 prime or the Canon 100-400mm lens. Both are excellent lenses.

The last two years Sigma has been making some very good lenses. Some of them have been competing with Canon "L" series lenses, depending on which lens you are looking at. Be sure it is a Sigma "EX" series lens produced in the last couple of years though. This does NOT include the Sigma 150-500mm lens.

Jim D

Nightski

Low light, in the forest ... IS .... Priceless .... :-D

fuzzypaddle Loc: Southern Illinois

My 70-200 f/2.8 lens is the sharpest lens I have.

amehta Loc: Boston

IS + fast lens + monopod = best chance of getting the shot. :-D