I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, and I really don't use the 300mm to often so I'm looking for an expensive best bang for you buck 300mm. I don't want to buy a 70-300mm as it over laps too much with the 70-300mm. Any advice?
I just bought a Canon 2x II extender for $225 on the buy/sell for my 70-200 2.8 IS II and I am very impressed with its performance. I now have a very good 140-400mm lens for the rare occasion i need that focal length. Why not buy either a 1.4x or 2x for your 70-200?
The Canon 300 f/4L IS USM is hard to beat for the money if you have the bucks (about $1359 currently). Anything else less expensive gives sharpness at 300mm and/or lacks IS. This lens also works well with a 1.4x TC. Either of these would be worthwhile second hand also.
OMG!!! There's not a better bang for the buck of the EF 300 F/4L (Non-IS)!!! It's by far still one of my 2-3 favored lenses!!! $600-750 and you're is superb AF and IQ !!!
True but compare the 300 with 1.4 vs. the 70-200 2.8II with 2x to see options for adding even more flexibility. IMO the 300 wins based on this. AF is also considerably faster on the 300 (either version) compared to the 70-200 with 1.4x.
I guess we all have different ideas of what inexpensive looks like. 459 for a 1.4III TC vs 1359 for a 300mm f/4...I don't think you'd see much practical difference between the two.
jasonpatrick wrote:
I guess we all have different ideas of what inexpensive looks like. 459 for a 1.4III TC vs 1359 for a 300mm f/4...I don't think you'd see much practical difference between the two.
True. Agree with this. Not really fair to compare 1300 against 500 either.....
