I know this lens is getting very long in the tooth but I’ve been thinking more and more about getting it the last few months. I’ve been looking over pictures taken with it on Flickr and it looks like the lens can still produce outstanding images, even on lower end cameras. I recently picked up my first L lens and it has kind of gotten me hooked 
I never used to be much for shooting telephoto but since picking up the EF 70-200 f/4 L non-IS it has ended up being my most used lens this year.
I’ve been having fun trying to shoot wildlife, among other things, which is more difficult in the winter regardless, but I’ve noticed the lens is a bit short for that. I didn’t primarily get the 70-200 for wildlife, more for a general telephoto use (portraits, zoo trips, kids playing, landscape, flowers, etc), and the 70-200 has gotten me some great shots but there have been times when more reach would have been nice. My son also is getting into t-ball so having a good set of lenses for that would be nice as well.
I know the 100-400 is the de-facto standard now for getting into wildlife but having somewhat recently purchased the 70-200 the funds just aren’t there. I may get it someday but right now it’s just not in the cards. It seems the only affordable lenses for wildlife (primes) are the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6, otherwise your looking at some serious money. I’m also shooting with a rebel camera currently, T5/1200D, but in the next year or so I’d like to upgrade (either the 80D, 7Dmkii or the possible future 7Dmkiii but that’s another topic), so saving up for the 100-400 would delay a body upgrade as well.
What I was primarily thinking of using the 300 f/4 lens for would be stationary birds (perched in trees, parks around town, on the water on lakes and rivers, etc). I also like photographing flowers and small details when I’m out shooting landscapes which I hear this lens is pretty good at with the 0.24 native magnification. It may get pushed into BIF use at times, but I know other lenses are better at it. I can also see uses for it for my son’s t-ball and hopefully future baseball games, maybe some landscape use, and more reach for general use.
I don’t use primes too much but I’ve been having more and more fun using them the past year over zooms so I think this may be a good addition. I should also mention I also currently have the EF 1.4 mk ii extender which would make this a 420mm f/5.6 lens with IS which seems useful, even though AF would be slower and I know the image stabilization is 1st gen and not all that great.
With the RF mount out now I don’t really see this lens ever getting an update unless its into the mirrorless world, so I don’t know that it’s worth holding out for updates.
I’ve been looking around and used prices for good to very good condition lenses from various sources seem to be going from $550ish to $700ish range which doesn’t seem bad. Would it be worth it or are there other lenses that would be worth looking at, without going to third party (just not comfortable with that). Or just make do with the 70-200 until I can afford the 100-400 lens?
I never used to be much for shooting telephoto but since picking up the EF 70-200 f/4 L non-IS it has ended up being my most used lens this year.I’ve been having fun trying to shoot wildlife, among other things, which is more difficult in the winter regardless, but I’ve noticed the lens is a bit short for that. I didn’t primarily get the 70-200 for wildlife, more for a general telephoto use (portraits, zoo trips, kids playing, landscape, flowers, etc), and the 70-200 has gotten me some great shots but there have been times when more reach would have been nice. My son also is getting into t-ball so having a good set of lenses for that would be nice as well.
I know the 100-400 is the de-facto standard now for getting into wildlife but having somewhat recently purchased the 70-200 the funds just aren’t there. I may get it someday but right now it’s just not in the cards. It seems the only affordable lenses for wildlife (primes) are the 300 f/4 and 400 f/5.6, otherwise your looking at some serious money. I’m also shooting with a rebel camera currently, T5/1200D, but in the next year or so I’d like to upgrade (either the 80D, 7Dmkii or the possible future 7Dmkiii but that’s another topic), so saving up for the 100-400 would delay a body upgrade as well.
What I was primarily thinking of using the 300 f/4 lens for would be stationary birds (perched in trees, parks around town, on the water on lakes and rivers, etc). I also like photographing flowers and small details when I’m out shooting landscapes which I hear this lens is pretty good at with the 0.24 native magnification. It may get pushed into BIF use at times, but I know other lenses are better at it. I can also see uses for it for my son’s t-ball and hopefully future baseball games, maybe some landscape use, and more reach for general use.
I don’t use primes too much but I’ve been having more and more fun using them the past year over zooms so I think this may be a good addition. I should also mention I also currently have the EF 1.4 mk ii extender which would make this a 420mm f/5.6 lens with IS which seems useful, even though AF would be slower and I know the image stabilization is 1st gen and not all that great.
With the RF mount out now I don’t really see this lens ever getting an update unless its into the mirrorless world, so I don’t know that it’s worth holding out for updates.
I’ve been looking around and used prices for good to very good condition lenses from various sources seem to be going from $550ish to $700ish range which doesn’t seem bad. Would it be worth it or are there other lenses that would be worth looking at, without going to third party (just not comfortable with that). Or just make do with the 70-200 until I can afford the 100-400 lens?
