Canon 70-300L as a landscape lens...

[splproductions]

I am focusing on landscape work right now, and in terms of zooms, I've got the 16-35 f/4L, the 24-70 2.8L, and the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I'm shooting with a 6D.

The 70-200 is obviously an awesome lens, but it's big and heavy, and when doing landscape work, you're usually stopped down anyway. I do a lot of multi-day backpacking with my gear, so I was thinking of getting the 70-300L and leaving the 70-200 at home. It's 1 lb lighter and a lot more compact.

Any thoughts on this? Has anyone used this lens for landscape work?

 

[Derrel]

HAVE NOT used this lens...but I would expect that at f/8 or f/9 or f/10 or f/11 that it is every bit there equal of many tele-zooms...lucky for you, the 6D's sensor offers not-too-small pixel size, so diffraction ought not to be too terribly bad at smallish apertures like those in the f/7.1 to f/11 range. I personally think that it makes some sense to go with slower lenses for landscape work, especially if backpacking or hiking long distances. It does not make a whole lot of sense to think that a massive f/2.8 70-200 will offer "that much more" once stopped down to typical landscape-type f/stops.