What Canon zoom and when to buy?
Discussion
I'm looking to get an upgrade for a 70-300 IS USM to be used on a 400D and a 40D.
I was thinking 100-400 L but the 70-200 F4 IS L has also come into the running at around the same price. The 70-300 L is out of budget.
It'd mainly be used for sports and wildlife especially on holidays.
Primarily I'd like extra sharpness but added reach is also tempting.
Are there any other lenses I should consider?
Also is it likely either would be cheaper in the January sales given the VAT increase?
I was thinking 100-400 L but the 70-200 F4 IS L has also come into the running at around the same price. The 70-300 L is out of budget.
It'd mainly be used for sports and wildlife especially on holidays.
Primarily I'd like extra sharpness but added reach is also tempting.
Are there any other lenses I should consider?
Also is it likely either would be cheaper in the January sales given the VAT increase?
toasty said:
Primarily I'd like extra sharpness but added reach is also tempting.
This is going to be the sticking point, the 70-200 F/4 will be sharper then the 100-400, but the 100-400 has much more reach. What kind of photography will you be doing? Will you miss the 100mm you would be loosing from your current lens? something to consider may be that the 100-400 has canon's older "2-stop" IS whereas i'm farily certain the 70-200 f/4 IS has the new "4-stop" system
Perhaps worth considering is the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS lens, marginally more expensive then the f/4 IS lens, but would depend on what would give you a bigger advantage - smaller/lighter lens and IS / better sharpness at a given apeture and faster lens.
A 1.4x tele converter might be a useful addition, especially with the 70-200 f/2.8, giving you a 98-280mm f/4 lens, or 98-280 f/5.6 from the the 70-200 f/4. Both would retain autofocus too, but would perform better with the 2.8 lens.
Edited by jimmy156 on Thursday 16th December 10:07
ETA: re-reading your post i see you say it will be used mostly for sports and wildlife, particularly on holiday. the 100-400 is definatley going to be the best lens for wildlife, 200mm is probably too short unless you only photographing large animals from a car or hide. As for sports it will depend how close you are to the action, but i would still say the 100-400 is the better bet, as it will give you more options, and you wont miss a shot because you dont have the reach.
Warehouseexpress.com usually has good prices, or there is a highy rated ebay seller called Kerso that seems to great a great rep here and other places.
Edited by jimmy156 on Thursday 16th December 10:12
Thanks Jimmy, I've bought from Kerso in the past and should email him for a price on each lens.
With the 70-200, I'd consider also getting a 2x converter to give the extra reach when I need it.
The sport would mostly be motorsport, especially Le Mans next year.
Gah, decisions, decisions...
With the 70-200, I'd consider also getting a 2x converter to give the extra reach when I need it.
The sport would mostly be motorsport, especially Le Mans next year.
Gah, decisions, decisions...
toasty said:
With the 70-200, I'd consider also getting a 2x converter to give the extra reach when I need it.
If thats the case you would loose autofocus on the f/4 lens (but retain it on the 2.8 lens). For me personally i couldnt hack having to manual focus, especially at 400mm where depth of field will be minimum and your subject (sport/wildlide) will proabably be moving pretty quick.I know, tough decision, at leat its a nice decision to have to make
!I'll throw my usual curve ball into this one - Sigma's 100-300mm f4 EX, bought one for my 40D at the start of this year and it really is a fantastic lens. Both of the following sets were shot with it:
Port Lympne Zoo
Lydden Hill Rallycross
It's cheaper than any of the others you've mentioned, faster than the 100-400, longer than the 70-200 and gives an IQ that I would say is pretty much the equal of either. The only minor thing for me is that I do feel that it could do with some form of IS, but then the Wildebeest shots from Port Lympne were shot at around 15:30 on a very dull, drizzley day in late October, hand-held out the back of a Land Rover. So it's not that big a thing.
ETA: I've also used it with Canon's 1.4x extender, making it a 140-420 f5.6 ... it still gives cracking results.
Port Lympne Zoo
Lydden Hill Rallycross
It's cheaper than any of the others you've mentioned, faster than the 100-400, longer than the 70-200 and gives an IQ that I would say is pretty much the equal of either. The only minor thing for me is that I do feel that it could do with some form of IS, but then the Wildebeest shots from Port Lympne were shot at around 15:30 on a very dull, drizzley day in late October, hand-held out the back of a Land Rover. So it's not that big a thing.
ETA: I've also used it with Canon's 1.4x extender, making it a 140-420 f5.6 ... it still gives cracking results.
Edited by Dogsey on Thursday 16th December 10:36
I have a friend in canada who uses the Sigma 100-300 F4 with a 5D, frequently using it with a Canon 1.4x convertor. He bought it to replace a Canon 100-400 that he wasn't happy with. He makes a living shooting surfing, bears, eagles, scenic with it. The quality is excellent, up to A3 I'd be as happy with it as I am with my 100-400.
It looks like the 100-400 is going to be the best choice.
I don't have the steadiest of hands so the IS will come in handy compared to the Sigma.
Thanks for the offer Dave but as it's a joint purchase we'd like to go for a new one this time.
That nice Mr Kerso has already provided a good price but I have to clear it with the other half as she's coughing up, erm, the other half.
Thanks guys.
I don't have the steadiest of hands so the IS will come in handy compared to the Sigma.
Thanks for the offer Dave but as it's a joint purchase we'd like to go for a new one this time.
That nice Mr Kerso has already provided a good price but I have to clear it with the other half as she's coughing up, erm, the other half.
Thanks guys.
100-400L is a great lens.
I dont rate the IS on it, it works but you need to give it time to settle, no good for a grab shot.
Autofocus is fast and the push pull zoom works OK IMO.
The one I've used was very sharp wide open at 400, BUT it takes some effort to learn how to get the best out of it.
The bokeh isnt the best but mostly thats excusable.
I've a 400/5.6l prime and 70-200/2.8 instead .
I dont rate the IS on it, it works but you need to give it time to settle, no good for a grab shot.
Autofocus is fast and the push pull zoom works OK IMO.
The one I've used was very sharp wide open at 400, BUT it takes some effort to learn how to get the best out of it.
The bokeh isnt the best but mostly thats excusable.
I've a 400/5.6l prime and 70-200/2.8 instead .
I would (and indeed did) go for the 70-200 F4 IS and a 1.4 Extender II. I tried the 100-400 at Le Mans last year and whilst it was superb it is such a big heavy lump to be carrying for 24 hours. When I looked through the exif data on my shots from LM not one was over 280mm, mostly 150-250mm so an ideal job for the much lighter and more portable 70-200 F4IS and 1.4 combo.
I've since used this setup for rallying and it has been ideal, take the TC off for when you don't nead the extra reach. Also it is as sharp as a very sharp thing and doesn't make my kit bag any heavier than it needs to be (it already weighs a tonne with 2x 1D bodies (a MK2 and a 1Ds).
I've since used this setup for rallying and it has been ideal, take the TC off for when you don't nead the extra reach. Also it is as sharp as a very sharp thing and doesn't make my kit bag any heavier than it needs to be (it already weighs a tonne with 2x 1D bodies (a MK2 and a 1Ds).
markmullen said:
I would (and indeed did) go for the 70-200 F4 IS and a 1.4 Extender II. I tried the 100-400 at Le Mans last year and whilst it was superb it is such a big heavy lump to be carrying for 24 hours. When I looked through the exif data on my shots from LM not one was over 280mm, mostly 150-250mm so an ideal job for the much lighter and more portable 70-200 F4IS and 1.4 combo.
I've since used this setup for rallying and it has been ideal, take the TC off for when you don't nead the extra reach. Also it is as sharp as a very sharp thing and doesn't make my kit bag any heavier than it needs to be (it already weighs a tonne with 2x 1D bodies (a MK2 and a 1Ds).
Same here - luckily the OH 'allowed' me to buy the 2.8 IS and 2x converter, as I preferred the increased options over the 100-400. The wider aperture has also meant it's earned its keep when doing parties and events etc so you can sneak around without a flash and being in people's faces. Not helpful for the OP, but that was my rationale at the time.I've since used this setup for rallying and it has been ideal, take the TC off for when you don't nead the extra reach. Also it is as sharp as a very sharp thing and doesn't make my kit bag any heavier than it needs to be (it already weighs a tonne with 2x 1D bodies (a MK2 and a 1Ds).
muppetdave said:
Same here - luckily the OH 'allowed' me to buy the 2.8 IS and 2x converter, as I preferred the increased options over the 100-400. The wider aperture has also meant it's earned its keep when doing parties and events etc so you can sneak around without a flash and being in people's faces. Not helpful for the OP, but that was my rationale at the time.
Thats the setup I'm looking for, when you use the 2x, how many stops do you lose? Does it hurt the AF at all?D
I own both a 100-400L and a 70-200L (F2.8, IS), the 100-400 was bought first. These days the kit that I take everywhere with me is a 5D2, Sigma 12-24, Canon 24-70, 70-200, and a 1.4x convertor. The 100-400 usually stays at home unless I think there's a strong chance of it getting used, even then I tend to favour the 70-200 + 1.4.
When it is used it is usually on a 40D body for the extra reach while the 5D2 has the 70-200. On safari last year the split between 5D2/70-200 and 40D/100-400 was about 50/50 while actually viewing game. At airshows the split is probably 75/25 in favour of the 100/400 combo. Le Mans this year the 100/400 stayed in the bag. We go whale and bear watching in Canada each year, again the 100-400 finds favour.
I find that IS works well on both lenses. 100-400, crop body, 400mm, F5.6, 1/80sec, handheld with IS on :-
When it is used it is usually on a 40D body for the extra reach while the 5D2 has the 70-200. On safari last year the split between 5D2/70-200 and 40D/100-400 was about 50/50 while actually viewing game. At airshows the split is probably 75/25 in favour of the 100/400 combo. Le Mans this year the 100/400 stayed in the bag. We go whale and bear watching in Canada each year, again the 100-400 finds favour.
I find that IS works well on both lenses. 100-400, crop body, 400mm, F5.6, 1/80sec, handheld with IS on :-
LongQ said:
dibbly dobbler said:
Damn that's good 
Although it does mean yet another expensive item of equipment for me to lust after!
Let me see now .... how recently was it we were having that sort of discussion ....?Although it does mean yet another expensive item of equipment for me to lust after!
Decent progress considering I had precisely nothing a year ago!A decent telephoto will surely follow - a 70-200 is in pole position but can I stretch to IS
PS - stop taunting me and post some pics up man, I can't remember the last time you did !
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff