All I can speak to is the 70-200mmf2.8 II IS.
It is the only zoom I own and I have owned all of the zooms until the 70-200mmf2.8 IS II came out.
Yeah it is a bit heavy but I love it! Tack sharp, great AF, the build is great so that is my $.02 worth. I have used it on all my Canon bodies, from 20D to 1Dx. It is a "keeper".
I'm not sure if this will give any ideas, but it is what I see myself doing.
I recently purchased a 24-105L as well as the 70-300 non L. I found that the 4.0 and 5.6 produced softer photos than I would have liked wide open. I've looked at test shots, and because of these and my own experience I will probably keep the 24-105 for my walk around lens, but also add a 70-200 IS 2.8 (not sure of V1 or V2) as well as a 300 f/4. The 300 F4 IS can be had used for less than a grand and it has IS which the 400/5.6 does not. I'll also pick up a 1.4 converter to make everything complete. (to get a 400 range) The 300 f4 is sharper and faster from what I have seen than a 70-200 with a converter, and to be honest, the newer V3 converters are half the cost of the used 300IS anyway. So why not just get the prime?
I'll eventually add a 24, 28, or 35mm prime as well for portraits and landscapes but for what I have been photographing lately I think my plan will work well.
BTW, when i put the 24-105 on the camera I was like wow, this thing has some heft. Was worried that it would suck carrying around a heavier lens. However, I just got my OP/Tech sling strap and the thing is so comfortable and easy to use, it really doesn't feel like the camera and lens weighs more than a half pound. Barely noticable on my shoulder. So weight for me is no longer an issue and I would have no problem thinking about the 70-200 IS V2.
StillFingerz wrote:
Thank you Sir, btw, really cool pijun shots you just posted in the "Summer" thread, thought the 2nd was amazing, that inflight pose looks much like a few that ImageMaster takes of Bald Eagles...birds of a feather...nice shooting Peter
Glad you like them, Jerry, those were test grade PIF shots. Today I believe I can finally wrap up the 1DX AF test program and go into "production" with the camera.
As far as similarity between photographing eagles in flight and pijuns in flight goes, there is probably very little there.
The Canada goose I think is more of a comparable difficulty (or "ease") to eagles when it comes to IF shooting. (Please forgive some softness in the images, they were taken with 400 DO).
Ian, I was about to offer a suggestion that doesn't fit your poll choices (keep the 24-105), but reconsidered, realizing that your camera is a 7D and you have a great mid-range zoom for it (17-55/2.8 IS). I shoot FF and 1.3 crop, and consider the 24-105 valuable, but I can see it being much less useful for you. At any rate...
I'll vote for keeping the 80-200/2.8 and adding the 70-200/4 L IS, which is a great lens. You'll have the pipe for special occasions where ~ 200 mm @ 2.8 gives a special look. For the rest of the time, you have a two lens combo (17-55, 70-200/4) that is easy to carry around, stabilizes well enough to do amazing things without a tripod, and is sharp at any aperture. The 100-400 is a different animal, and I would keep it in the arsenal. Although the IS is not nearly as effective as the new versions, the flexibility of that FL range without attaching and removing extenders is very useful. It also is just as compact as the 70-200/2.8, noticeably lighter, and of course TC(s) would add to the difference in weight and bulk.
Don't get me wrong, I have the 70-200/2.8 L II and love it. I'm lucky that I was able to get a great price on that _and_ the f/4, and I use them both depending on circumstances. I just think that for your situation as you've described it, option 1 might be best for your money and muscles.
