dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Currently I have a Sigma 150-600 C, a Canon 70-200 2.8 L USM (1995 version) and Canon 2xII extender and an old Sigma 17-70. I have found that when using the 150-600 I seldom keep a shot over 400mm and never over 500mm. I mount these on my 80D. On a recent trip I left the 150-600 home and shot the 70-200 with the 2x extender when I need the longer lens. I very much liked it and the pictures it produced.

I also found the Sigma 17-70 is not producing what I want and I tend to leave it home.

So I am thinking of dropping the 150-600 and replacing the 70-200 and the 2x with newer equipment (the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 2xIII) Also I was thinking of replacing the Sigma 17-70 with one of the following: the 24-105L f/4 IS II, the 24-70L f/4 is USM or the 24-70L 2.8 II USM. I think I come close to break even on this except, possibly when I go for the 24-70 2.8.

I think this would leave me with a higher quality and more flexible setup. I wanted to get your reactions to this plan and see if I am missing anything in my thinking.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

I think you are planning the right moves!

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Obviously, you don't seem to care if you lose the 17-24mm range. When I first started out with a Minolta SRT 100 and 50mm lens, I found I needed wide angle more than telephoto. A 28mm on it has the same angle of view as a 17mm on your 80D. You might want to consider a EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM or the II, 'tho they are wide angle only, or a 17-50 from other manufacturers

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I agree, however I have a 10-18 and an 18-35 for wide angle and have no plans of replacing them.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Aha! Very good

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

EF 100-400 L II. With or without extender. I bought a 70-200 f/2.8 L II before the 100-400. The end result is that I rarely use the 70-200 unless I am in a low light situation, such as a gymnasium. The 100-400, whether on my 7DII or 5DIV, with or without my EF 1.4 III extender, is superb. Personally, I don't care much for extenders, but sometimes they are useful. The 100-400 keeps those times to a minimum. Next I would go for a 24-105. I have the EF 24-105 f/4 L, which is a fine lens (except for the somewhat annoying lens creep). I understand the Mk II version is even better. Then there is the EF 16-35 f/4 L. Excellent lens. Hard to beat. Great for landscapes, street, interiors, and so on. The 2.8 would be a consideration if you want better low light performance.
I have a number of other primes. Fast, portrait, macro. The 3 lenses I described are the 3 I use the most though. Especially the 100-400. The biggest downside to the three is speed, if that is a consideration for you.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

How often do you need f/2.8? Obviously, if you need it and don't have it, that's a problem. But, I'd suggest you need 400mm more than f/2.8. I'd keep the older 70-200 and add the 100-400L II and a 1.4xIII.

On the shorter side, that's a more difficult. The 24-70 f/2.8L is a wonderful lens as are the various 16-35L models and the 24-105L II. Personal preference and need again come into play here. The f/4 lenses are fast enough for my needs over this range.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Thanks. I had considered the 100-400 but I do need the 2.8 for portrait and low light work. On the recent trip I mentioned, I shot birds, marathons and a luau. The 70-200 2.8 worked well at the luau and during the marathons. With the 2x it worked for the birds. I also had my 18-35 and 10-18 with me. I am not sure the 100-400 would have covered all of those situations and I can only carry on so much camera equipment (as well as clothing since I never check luggage). I think I would like to have a the 100-400 sometime in the future though. I am going to think about the 24-70 and or the 24-105 F/4. Perhaps at those lengths, I do not need the 2.8.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

I also have the EF 24-70 f/4 L. Aside from it's close-up capability (not really macro as is claimed) there is not much it can do that the 24-105 can't. The f/2.8 version is another story, of course. For the little portrait work that I do (I try to steer clear of relatives and their kids. Especially at holidays!) I bought the rather inexpensive EF 85mm f/1.8. It does an outstanding job. Makes me look like I know what I am doing! At times, anyway!

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

thanks

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I have as my main lenses the 24-70 f/2.8 II, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 2x III Extender. I find that covers a great range with outstanding lenses but at a cost of over $4000 new. I have posted a couple shots with the 70-200 and the Extender in the Gallery about a week ago. I am doing more shooting with that combination and it can get very good results. But it can also miss sometimes, at least for me. But I think it is mostly me that is the problem. I need to work and practice with it more. If you need the 70-200 f/2.8 I would go for it. The 85mm f/1.8 is also a very useful and fast focusing lens for an inexpensive price. Try the Extender and if it doesn't work return it or resell it. B&H offers a 30 day return. The Canon 200-400 f/4 with built in extender is very nice if you hit the lottery too....

Best,
Todd Ferguson

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

In general, I think there are some ( small) advantages to your thinking - except the part about breaking even $$$. I think it will cost MORE than you think to pull it off !

Consider dropping the 70-200's W/2X and look at the new Sigma or Tamron 100-400's.....

The older Sigma 50-150 2.8 may also be an interesting lens for you - but no IS.

..

glennk

Looking at the various posts and your responses, it seems you like to travel light, with 2 lenses in your bag. If that’s correct, the real difference in your lenses choices is how much you need low light capabilities. If you do shoot in low light, the 24-70, 70-200 and an extender is the better route (latest version of each and F2.8). If you shoot a lot of distance (wildlife or field sports), using an extender will slow down the focus acquisition and you will lose a stop with the 1.4x and 2 stops with the 2x. If that’s a true consideration, you might consider the 24-105 and 100-400.

I carry 4 lenses when I travel. 14mm, 16-35 2.8, 24-105 and 100-400 along with a 1.4 extender. This isn’t a recommendation, it’s just what works for me and covers most situations.

Your path above is very reasonable and won’t be a disappointment to you. Good luck and great shooting...

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

This may not help, but I have Canon: 5D MIII, 7D MII, 24 - 70 f/2.8 II, 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and the 2xIII). They cover 90% of my shooting. I also have a Tamron f/2.8 17 -
35 for wide angle when needed.
Mark

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Like you, I have the Canon 2X II and have experimented with using it on the earlier 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses (in my case it was the later IS)... I found image quality generally unacceptable for anything more than small, low resolution image uses such as Internet or 4x6 to 5x7 prints (at most).

The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II and 2X III are reported to work together MUCH better and I'm sure you can find a lot of discussion about it online... probably will find some image examples, too. One of the key reasons the 70-200/2.8 "II" is superior to the two earlier f/2.8 versions is that Canon added fluorite to the newer lens (both the Canon 70-200mm f/4 versions use fluorite, too). That's one of the main factors these three lenses are described as "sharp enough to make your eyes bleed".

However, while some folks have been satisfied with the 70-200mm "II" and 2X "III" combo... some others have said it's still too much loss of IQ (and the density of a 24MP APS-C sensor like the 80D's is pretty unforgiving). You might want to rent and try the combo before committing to a purchase.

If you don't need the f/2.8 aperture (which becomes f/5.6 whenever you add the 2X), you might want to consider the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM "II". It's also quite sharp and it sounds as if you wouldn't need to use a teleconverter with it much of the time... But if you ever did, the 1.4X III would make for a 140-560mm (and your 80D is able to AF with it). The 100-400mm is probably about the same weight as the 70-200/2.8 & 2X. The 100-400 alone also would cost less than those two.

I got the 100-400mm II last year and now use it as much or more than my two 70-200s (f/4 and f/2.8 versions). I often use it with a 24-70mm and don't really miss the focal lengths in between. Mine happens to be the older f/2.8L, but if I were buying today I'd probably get the 24-70mm f/4L IS USM for it's image stabilization, near macro close focusing ability (.70X magnification), smaller size (77mm filters instead of 82mm), and considerably lower cost.

But I use both APS-C (7DII mostly) and full frame (5DII currently).... If I were only using APS-C like you, I might seriously consider either the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (for it's super range of focal lenths) OR the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (for it's larger aperture).... Both those have "L-like" image quality and performance while still being reasonably compact, though they have more "mid-grade" build quality and sealing.

I'm not all that impressed with the EF 24-105L "II". Image quality seems about the same as the first version, which was okay, but not great (the far cheaper, film-era 28-135mm can pretty much match it for IQ and performance). The 24-105 "II" does have much improved IS... and it uses the new "Nano USM" focus drive. But if I were shooting video, I'd wonder why Canon failed to make it compatible with the PZ-E1 Power Zoom module that they intro'd about 6 months earlier with the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM. Seemed to me a "no brainer" if upgrading the 24-105 to be more "video capable", to make it (and the 70-300mm IS USM "II") work with the Power Zoom too.

The much more expensive EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM certainly is a superb lens... "like a bag full of L-series primes", I've heard it described. However, it's also big, heavy and expensive. And it doesn't have IS.

You mention yours is the Sigma 150-600mm "C" and I'm pretty certain any of the above telephoto options would be a nice step up. Same would be the case if it were the original Tamron. But if it were the Tamron G2 or the Sigma "S", maybe not so much. But, of course, if you don't need and use it, why carry around such a large lens?

BTW, Tamron has recently intro'd a 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 VC USD that might be worth consideration. It's very new, so there's limited info so far...and it doesn't come with a tripod mounting ring. But one can optionally be fitted and even with that it's half the price of the Canon 100-400 II. Sigma has a relatively new 100-400mm, too... but personally I'd never buy it because there is no tripod ring or even an option to fit one. I just feel that with telephotos this powerful, a tripod ring is an essential feature and if it's not included would at least want the option.