Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon L Zoom. Which one would you buy?

Go to last post
Z

zoot allures

Member
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
MX
Hello all.

Ok... I have a little money saved up and will be back in the US and able to do some shopping. I have spent two years using my 40D with at 10-22, 28-135, 50 f1.4, and a 70-300. All moderately priced pretty decent lenses that have served me well.

And now the plunge most if not all of you have taken in this wonderful pastime.

I am looking at buying some L glass. And actually would like to get a decent amount of reach as the 70-300 4-5.6 IS is just seems to fall short for me in some nature categories / birds etc. Other wise I do like the other lenses I own and have taken some great shots with all. I'm looking to take my pictures and skills to that next level

So if you had my lens kit and had a spare + - $2500... (which trust me has been allocated from food / coffee funds) kicking around, which of the following would you buy? Or if you have another recommendation or combination I would love to hear it.

1. Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS+ a 1.4x or 2X TC ~ $2258 + Tax @ B&H

2. Canon 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 L IS ~ $2500 +Tax @B&H (not really my fav. choice)

3. Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS AND a 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS ~ $2700 @B&H

Thank you in advance for any thoughts. I have learned a lot from this forum over the years and really appreciate all thats contributed here.

S.
 
100-400L seems like the most logical choice. You'll probably have enough left over to cover the standard range with a 24-70 or 24-105L
 
zoot allures said:
Hello all.

Ok... I have a little money saved up and will be back in the US and able to do some shopping. I have spent two years using my 40D with at 10-22, 28-135, 50 f1.4, and a 70-300. All moderately priced pretty decent lenses that have served me well.

And now the plunge most if not all of you have taken in this wonderful pastime.

I am looking at buying some L glass. And actually would like to get a decent amount of reach as the 70-300 4-5.6 IS is just seems to fall short for me in some nature categories / birds etc. Other wise I do like the other lenses I own and have taken some great shots with all. I'm looking to take my pictures and skills to that next level

So if you had my lens kit and had a spare + - $2500... (which trust me has been allocated from food / coffee funds) kicking around, which if the following would you buy? Or if you have another recommendation / combination I would love to hear it.

1. Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS+ a 1.4x or 2X TC ~ $2258 + Tax @ B&H

2. Canon 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 L IS ~ $2500 +Tax @B&H (not really my fav. choice)

3. Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS AND a 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS ~ $2700 @B&H

Thank you in advance for any thoughts. I have learned a lot from this forum over the years and really appreciate all thats contributed here.
Click to expand...
You don't really need the f2.8 on the 70-200 unless you're doing low light photography (just an observation from using both, don't go crazy on me for saying it), so the 70-200mm f4 and 100-400mm f4 is probably the best option to take. I wouldn't bother with a teleconverter, since your 40D makes the 400mm into 640mm.
zoot allures said:
S.
Click to expand...
 
If I am you, I would buy the 17-55(selling the 28-135 when you get home) and 70-200 F4 L IS plus a Kenko or Tamron 1.4x Extender and the 85mm 1.8 if you want, since you don't really need 50mm 1.4 if you have 17-55 F2.8. Good luck.
zoot allures said:
Hello all.

Ok... I have a little money saved up and will be back in the US and able to do some shopping. I have spent two years using my 40D with at 10-22, 28-135, 50 f1.4, and a 70-300. All moderately priced pretty decent lenses that have served me well.

And now the plunge most if not all of you have taken in this wonderful pastime.

I am looking at buying some L glass. And actually would like to get a decent amount of reach as the 70-300 4-5.6 IS is just seems to fall short for me in some nature categories / birds etc. Other wise I do like the other lenses I own and have taken some great shots with all. I'm looking to take my pictures and skills to that next level

So if you had my lens kit and had a spare + - $2500... (which trust me has been allocated from food / coffee funds) kicking around, which of the following would you buy? Or if you have another recommendation or combination I would love to hear it.

1. Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS+ a 1.4x or 2X TC ~ $2258 + Tax @ B&H

2. Canon 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 L IS ~ $2500 +Tax @B&H (not really my fav. choice)

3. Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS AND a 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS ~ $2700 @B&H

Thank you in advance for any thoughts. I have learned a lot from this forum over the years and really appreciate all thats contributed here.

S.
Click to expand...
 
I ended up with a 100-400 and owned a 70-200 f2.8 non IS plus 1.4 Ext and 2X Ext. but I find that the 100-400 is just so much more versatile (for the same weight and size) except for low light of course.
 
If you are looking for reach the 100-400 is the answer. I would consider keeping the 70-300 and up grading your standardl zoom. I had the70-300 when I bought the 100-400 for a safari and figured I would sell one or the other afterwards. I have not because the 70-300 is a good light weight lens for traveling for reasons other than wild life. If I was writing on a clean slate I would go with a 70-200 f4 IS but like you I already owned the 70-300 and it's a good lens.
--
http://mitchseaver.com/
 
After much dithering, I have settled on:

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM
EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM
plus
Canon 1.4X TC (2X optional)
Canon 500D close-up lens

as the ideal lens set for me for general amateur photography with APS-C cameras.

For full-frame, I would substitute the 24-70 for the 17-55.
 
This has all been very helpful information. I am currently looking into some of your suggestions. And truly thank you all for taking the time to reply.

Follow up question: I posted this in the open forum as well. Do any of you have any experience with SuperCoupons?

The have listed in their B&H section:

http://www.supercoupon.com/Coupons/Electronics/Canon_Lenses_at_B%26H/

The 100 400 and the 70 200 2.8 for a lot less than anywhere. But when you click on the link the price is not reflected on the B&H page. What gives? anyone have any clue?

PS I will post what I do end up buying ASAP. :) and thanks again. S>
 
Most of your choices are in the same zoom range, roughly. Your last choice of 100 - 400 is quite different. What do you shoot the most? Most would use the 70 - 200 zoom range the most; I'd be inclined to get the 70 - 200 f2.8 non-IS as I know the IQ is a little bit better than its more expensive brother. But I would be torn between it and the f4 IS version, no doubt about it, the latter lens is excellent as well. I figure with the f2.8 with evolving higher ISO, you will be able to get more use of it than in the past. Recall that the wider f stop helps to isolate the subject from the background more.

The popular zooms of 70 - 200 can be used on trips, especially the lighter ones. The 100 - 400 definitely isn't a travel lens (though I know some will chime in and say that is how they have used theirs - these are fit youngsters). A lens is a tool, so what job do you need done; my experience is that from questions like yours where the choice is all over the place, why not hold off and shot more with what you have and see where you are headed photographically then get a lens to scratch that need.
--
An excellent lens lasts a lifetime, an excellent DSLR, not so long.
 
zoot allures said:
Ok... I have a little money saved up and will be back in the US and able to do some shopping. I have spent two years using my 40D with at 10-22, 28-135, 50 f1.4, and a 70-300. All moderately priced pretty decent lenses that have served me well.
Click to expand...
Glad you liked them. Of your line up, I would consider selling the 28-135 and 70-300 to gain some additional cash.
zoot allures said:
I am looking at buying some L glass. And actually would like to get a decent amount of reach as the 70-300 4-5.6 IS is just seems to fall short for me in some nature categories / birds etc. Other wise I do like the other lenses I own and have taken some great shots with all. I'm looking to take my pictures and skills to that next level.
Click to expand...
It is laudable to improve one's skills but if you have a real interest in shooting wild life including birds it comes at quite an expense. Perhaps it would be better to scour a few wildlife journals, visit some dedicated forums, and rent a few lenses to see if they fit your needs?
zoot allures said:
So if you had my lens kit and had a spare + - $2500... (which trust me has been allocated from food / coffee funds) kicking around, which of the following would you buy? Or if you have another recommendation or combination I would love to hear it.
Click to expand...
Personally, I am not overwhelmed by any of your choices. These are all (with the exception of the 100-400 lens) mid range zooms. Sure, they are a bit better glass than what you have now, but they really aren't the kinds of lenses that you need to do some serious wildlife. The 100-400 is an interesting lens, but it's an older and rather odd design. People seem to love it or hate it, but I just find it to be a bit strange.

Serious birders will seek out long lenses 500-600 mm which cost many thousands of dollars )$6-8k). Short of that you could consider the 400 mm f5.6 and pop on a 1.4x teleconverter. It will bring you closer for birding and wildlife and still have pretty good optical properties. That will set you back around ($1.5k) The 300 mm f4 is a wonderfully sharp lens but you would need a 2x converter to be serious with this. It actually AF'ed on my 1dmkII's but I wouldn't recommend it.
 
I agree completely.
Adam2 said:
zoot allures wrote:

Of your line up, I would consider selling the 28-135 and 70-300 to gain some additional cash.
Click to expand...
Definitely sell the 70-300 and 28-135 IS and get something else in these focal ranges.
Member said:
Personally, I am not overwhelmed by any of your choices. These are all (with the exception of the 100-400 lens) mid range zooms. Sure, they are a bit better glass than what you have now, but they really aren't the kinds of lenses that you need to do some serious wildlife. The 100-400 is an interesting lens, but it's an older and rather odd design. People seem to love it or hate it, but I just find it to be a bit strange.
Click to expand...
I've rented a 100-400 and really hated it. I thought the push/pull design would be OK because I've had fond memories of push/pull zooms back in the film days, but, this thing is big and heavy and it's harder that I thought it would be to balance it/zoom/focus all at the same time. I wasn't too impressed with its performance either. Now if Canon put out a 100-400 mk II with better optics and zoom mechanism, I'd buy it in a second. There's been rumors that late production 100-400 have optical qualities that rival the 400/5.6L, but, I don't think I'd be that lucky buying one that good.
Member said:
Serious birders will seek out long lenses 500-600 mm which cost many thousands of dollars )$6-8k). Short of that you could consider the 400 mm f5.6 and pop on a 1.4x teleconverter. It will bring you closer for birding and wildlife and still have pretty good optical properties. That will set you back around ($1.5k) The 300 mm f4 is a wonderfully sharp lens but you would need a 2x converter to be serious with this. It actually AF'ed on my 1dmkII's but I wouldn't recommend it.
Click to expand...
400/5.6 with a 1.4x TC is a great combo. You can sometimes find the 400/5.6 as a factory refurb at places like B&H. Still not long enough for lots of birding, but, the 400/5.6 is a great, light lens.

I really like the 70-200/2.8L IS, but, after using one every day for a week, I found that it makes my camera bag just heavy enough to give me problems. I settled for the 70-200/4L IS as a decent compromise. The times I wish I had the faster f/2.8 do happen, but, fortunately those times are rare enough.
 
Two best IMO. You'll love these two.

17-55 2.8 IS

70-200 4L IS

Keep the 10-22 and the 50 1.4.

Dave
 
Ahh a Zappa fan perhaps?

Glass:

It all depends on what you are wanting to do. You've mentioned 'more reach' which on your list, only the 100-400 gives you that.

Shooting with a xxD you'll be limited to autofocus with

I have both the 70-300IS and 100-400 and never got around to selling the former as it is a good light lens that can render great images if used within its limits.

If your serious about getting LONG, Canon's long primes (rather than zooms) are what serious wildlife/birders use. Expect to drop more than $2500. (I'm currently lusting over the 400/2.8IS)

People seem to love or hate the 100-400. It is a decent upgrade from the 70-300IS. It focuses better and faster, way sharper wide open and has 100MM more reach. I really like mine.

--
(insert brag sheet here)
http://flickr.com/photos/mbloof
Technologist @ Large
  • Mark0
 
I love your handle, zoot allures. Here's my idea:

I don't know anything about wildlife but it seems that none of your choices give you much reach over what you have now.

So I'd get the 70-200 f/2.8IS.

Once you use a telephoto zoom at f/2.8-f/3.5, well you won't go back. The depth of field is, 'ow you say, waffer-thin. You will be doing stuff with this lens, particularly if you like portraiture, that you haven't even thought of yet.
Adam2 said:
zoot allures said:
Ok... I have a little money saved up and will be back in the US and able to do some shopping. I have spent two years using my 40D with at 10-22, 28-135, 50 f1.4, and a 70-300. All moderately priced pretty decent lenses that have served me well.
Click to expand...
Glad you liked them. Of your line up, I would consider selling the 28-135 and 70-300 to gain some additional cash.
Member said:
I am looking at buying some L glass. And actually would like to get a decent amount of reach as the 70-300 4-5.6 IS is just seems to fall short for me in some nature categories / birds etc. Other wise I do like the other lenses I own and have taken some great shots with all. I'm looking to take my pictures and skills to that next level.
Click to expand...
It is laudable to improve one's skills but if you have a real interest in shooting wild life including birds it comes at quite an expense. Perhaps it would be better to scour a few wildlife journals, visit some dedicated forums, and rent a few lenses to see if they fit your needs?
Member said:
So if you had my lens kit and had a spare + - $2500... (which trust me has been allocated from food / coffee funds) kicking around, which of the following would you buy? Or if you have another recommendation or combination I would love to hear it.
Click to expand...
Personally, I am not overwhelmed by any of your choices. These are all (with the exception of the 100-400 lens) mid range zooms. Sure, they are a bit better glass than what you have now, but they really aren't the kinds of lenses that you need to do some serious wildlife. The 100-400 is an interesting lens, but it's an older and rather odd design. People seem to love it or hate it, but I just find it to be a bit strange.

Serious birders will seek out long lenses 500-600 mm which cost many thousands of dollars )$6-8k). Short of that you could consider the 400 mm f5.6 and pop on a 1.4x teleconverter. It will bring you closer for birding and wildlife and still have pretty good optical properties. That will set you back around ($1.5k) The 300 mm f4 is a wonderfully sharp lens but you would need a 2x converter to be serious with this. It actually AF'ed on my 1dmkII's but I wouldn't recommend it.
Click to expand...
 
mbloof said:
If your serious about getting LONG, Canon's long primes (rather than zooms) are what serious wildlife/birders use. Expect to drop more than $2500. (I'm currently lusting over the 400/2.8IS)
Click to expand...
If you want real reach I'd suggest the Canon 500 f/4L IS or 600 f/4L IS. Both work well with a 1.4x TC.

--
Kind regards,
Hans Kruse
Home Page -- http://www.hanskrusephotography.com , http://www.hanskruse.com
Workshops -- http://www.hanskrusephotography.com/workshops

Facebook Photography http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hans-Kruse-Photography/271477435625
 
Option 3 for me too. I own both of these lenses and am quite impressed by both.
 
If you want into the wildlife domain, then the other "cheaper" choice is either the Sigma 50 - 500 or the Sigma 150 - 500 OS lenses. My understanding is the former lens is a tad sharper but no stabilization, the latter lens is stabiblized with a claim to four stops, which I understand doesn't hold up to scrutiny but I believe it delivers and honest three stops.

Here is a link to some flicker group shots with the Sigma 150 - 500 OS lens:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma150-500/pool/

--
An excellent lens lasts a lifetime, an excellent DSLR, not so long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Scottelly
2 Lens Kit For fp L
Replies
6
Views
5K
Ceistinne
Ceistinne
José B
EF 85/1.2 L II repair
Replies
14
Views
2K
José B
José B
B
Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM version 1 soft at 200mm
Replies
11
Views
4K
J A C S
J A C S
M
Which Fujinon Lenses should/would you buy 2nd hand?
Replies
12
Views
10K
DJ STU-C
DJ STU-C
L
  • Question Question
Canon 24-105 L Ef is mark i vs ii
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
EduPortas
E

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top