Would you recommend 70-200 f4.0 or 70-200 f2.8 ii for landscape

[limvo05]

In June I will be taking a long road trip and hope to check out a few national parks like Arches, Zion, and Monument Valley.

Right now, I have only the 24-70 2.8 ii. I was thinking I should add a 70-200 to the toolkit. Any thought on which lens is a better choice? Beside the obvious price diff. My thinking is to go with the f2.8 as later I could get the 2x extender and the 2.8 would become 5.6 which is still manageble. Thoughts?

Thanks!

[Waddizzle]

What are you trying to shoot with those lenses?  The only time I use my 70-200 to shoot landscapes is when I roll it to portrait mode to take a series of panoramic shots.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzlewrote:

What are you trying to shoot with those lenses?  The only time I use my 70-200 to shoot landscapes is when I roll it to portrait mode to take a series of panoramic shots.

---

In those western national parks, he'll almost certainly be glad to have the 70-200. Even in Acadia, where the scenery is generally a lot closer than in places like Bryce and Zion, I used mine a lot.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@limvo05wrote:

In June I will be taking a long road trip and hope to check out a few national parks like Arches, Zion, and Monument Valley.

Right now, I have only the 24-70 2.8 ii. I was thinking I should add a 70-200 to the toolkit. Any thought on which lens is a better choice? Beside the obvious price diff. My thinking is to go with the f2.8 as later I could get the 2x extender and the 2.8 would become 5.6 which is still manageble. Thoughts?

Thanks!

---

I generally concur with your reasoning, but I think the 1.4X III extender is a better choice than the 2X. 2X extenders push the envelope a bit and, on many cameras, can cost you the use of some AF points.

What is the camera in this setup? If it's not a full-frame, the argument in favor if the 1.4X becomes even stronger.

[ebiggs1]

Buy the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens.  Ditch the thought of the 2x tel-con.  If you must get one buy the 1.4x.

If you think you want 400mm look at the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Lens.  It is a must have lens.

Personally I don't like to tag a lens with a certain moniker.  There isn't a 'landscape' lens per say.  There are lenses that folks use for landscapes.  But the bottom line is to use what works and don't worry what you call it.  Same thing applies to cameras.

200mm may be the perfect FL for a landsacpe photo. 400mm might be and so is the generally used 24mm, in certain cases.  Use what works so create a bag that supports that concept.

[limvo05]

Thank you for all commenting.

Any thought on the 100-400 mark ii? I have read some artciles and reviews e.g. Ken Rockwell and he definitely in favor of the 100-400 over the 70-200 mark ii.

Thanks!

[ebiggs1]

" Ken Rockwell and he definitely in favor of the 100-400 over the 70-200 mark ii."   

Not a chance in anybodies universe.  The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens all the way.

[Waddizzle]

---

@limvo05wrote:

Thank you for all commenting.

Any thought on the 100-400 mark ii? I have read some artciles and reviews e.g. Ken Rockwell and he definitely in favor of the 100-400 over the 70-200 mark ii.

Thanks!

---

I have three “walk around” lenses on a full frame body: 16-35mm, 70-200mm, and the 100-400mm.  BTW, the 100-400mm has an unusually short MFD, so it is great for taking “macro” shots on my hikes.

[limvo05]

Thank you for all your comments and suggestions. I finally saved enough for the 70-200 IS MK1 only. MK2 was a bit out of reach right now. Will definitely look into getting the X1.4 extender some day but right now, trying to save up on some good filters as the lights and conditions in these National Parks can be tricky.

LV

[ebiggs1]

"...to save up on some good filters as the lights and conditions ..."

A good post editor is a better way to go.  Filters are basically obsolete since great editors like Photoshop have improved so much.  Shoot Raw format and edit !