Canon L lens for less than 1k - which one?

braveboy2012

braveboy2012

Messages
1,454
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
No
Hi All,

I've been reading posts on here and talking with some photographers about what my next lens purchase will be. I want to keep it to less than 1k to keep the in the good books with the missus (!) and currently have about £700 saved up so am itching to buy!!!

I am using a 550d and currently mainly use a 55-250 EF-S which I often find a bit short in terms of range and also soft wide open (so much so I've shyed away from taking any shots wide open @250mm)

As I'm in to nature photography, I'm looking for a telephoto lens and am willing to buy second hand.

I was all set to buy the 100-400 L 4.5-5.6 and they are often going for less than £900 on eBay. I spoke to a couple of people with this lens and they swear by it. As someone fairly new to photography still I like the idea of a zoom to help with composition and also if I can't get in to the position I need with a prime lens due to the stubborn nature of animals :lol:

But then a couple of people have told me buying a 300mm f4 L or 400mm f5.6 L prime will suit me just as well and the fixed focal length will even help with my technique and the image quality will, of course, be up to the job!

I haven't really looked at the shoter focal lengths as it seems most of them in this price range involve buying 1.4x or even 2x extension which a) makes it more expensive (but maybe just in budget) and b) ups the min aperture quite a bit.

So any ideas?

My ideal would be some event where I can spend 30 mins or so with each lens (and I could even stomach a small event fee). As much as I'd like to hire each for a week that will end up eating into my budget quite significantly!

Thanks in advance :canon:
 
For sheer versatility the 100-400 L takes a lot of beating. For walking and running wildlife it's brilliant, great IQ (maybe not quite as good as a prime) and if you're currently favoring a 55-250 IS you wont go wrong with this. I've got a 70-200 f4 which is really sharp and the 100-400 aint much behind, if at all, with IQ. I've got a 7D and a 5D2 and it spends time on both of them, as it did on my 550D before the wife got hold of it. If you're anywhere near my neck of the woods you could always drop by for a test run.
 
Hi Stuart,

thanks or the reply. I've stumbled across another couple of posts since my original question, seems I should have been searching the 70-200 more as there are a lot of comparisons to that + the 1.4x. In fact, I am looking at (and watching) a few MkI 70-200 on eBay for that reason.

I think the nail on the head comment is versatility. While I am not looking to sell any of my pictures, I think the 100-400 will do me well and athough it may be true a prime will help me grow as a photographer, many of my shots are in zoos (due to the limited time I can dedicate) and therefore some of my better shots are below 300mm.

Oh, and thanks for the offer but Lincoln is a bit far. I am booked on a Big Cat day with Experience Seminars where they have L glass on trial but that is in June and that's way too long to have money in the bank! That was the type of event I was thinking of so maybe I should bite the bullet and do one of their open days...?
 
It's worth checking on mpbphotographic.co.uk. They sell second hand kit, the stuff I've had has been in good nick, the 100-400 is about 950 ish. The 70-200 f/2.8 is mk I is about the same ( they are from memory so don't quote me in then ;))
 
braveboy2012 said:
I think the nail on the head comment is versatility. While I am not looking to sell any of my pictures, I think the 100-400 will do me well and athough it may be true a prime will help me grow as a photographer, many of my shots are in zoos (due to the limited time I can dedicate) and therefore some of my better shots are below 300mm.
Click to expand...

I reckon that the 100-400 is the best zoo lens around. I use mine for days out a the zoo and it works a treat, good range of focal lengths for shooting the animals and also a nice lens for getting shots of my kids. If you are over Norfolk way you'd be welcome to try my 100-400.
 
It's a straight fight as far as I can see. If most of your shooting is done below 200mm get a 70-200mm f2.8 and add a converter for when you need the extra length, but if you think you'll spend lots of time around 400mm get the 100-400.
I would strongly suggest buying either off the classifieds here or a reputable dealer such as mpb rather than eBay. Gear tends to be well priced here and probably well looked after. You should get a 100-400 for under £800 in good nick.
 
You can get a 70-200 f2.8L IS second hand for around that price - A fantastic lens and very cheap since the MkII came out.

Advantages are that you can shoot in much lower light than you can with the 100-400. IQ is better but obviously it's a lot shorter. Adding the 1.4x l;oses a stop of light (still faster than the max of the 100-400 but the IQ stakes are then won by the 100-400 (although not by much)!

The 300 f4L IS is a fantastic lens too but I felt restricted by the fixed F/L so rarely used it and felt the 70-200 with and without the 1.4x better suited my style.

But I have to say all options are great.

For versatility I'd personally still go with the 70-200 f2.8L IS and if you can buy a 1.4x converter.... You can shoot at f2.8 when the light is poor and throw on the 1.4x when the light is good if you need the longer length. Makes the lens a very decent 98-280mm f4L IS and with the 1.6 crop cameras it's a 156.8 - 448mm lens!
 
jgs001 said:
It's worth checking on mpbphotographic.co.uk. They sell second hand kit, the stuff I've had has been in good nick...
Click to expand...
Thanks John. I've not come across them so will have a look.

postcardcv said:
I reckon that the 100-400 is the best zoo lens around... If you are over Norfolk way you'd be welcome to try my 100-400.
Click to expand...
Thanks Peter. We have some friends up in Norfolk so if I'm heading up that way I may call in that favour. I also saw someone down my local RSPB reserve with one so may just ask him!

pooley said:
It's a straight fight as far as I can see. If most of your shooting is done below 200mm get a 70-200mm f2.8...
I would strongly suggest buying either off the classifieds here or a reputable dealer such as mpb rather than eBay...
Click to expand...
Hi Mike, I think I need to try both don't I! I must admit I do love my 50mm when I can stop the lens down.

EOS_JD said:
...But I have to say all options are great.

For versatility I'd personally still go with the 70-200 f2.8L IS...
Click to expand...
Hi Jim, they certainly all look great. I'm hoping whatever option I go for brings some extra quality to my images. I may be at Colchester zoo with our friends children and not the camera today :thumbsdown::lol: but that won't stop me from lens spotting!
 
The 300 F4 is a belter of a lens and def worth an investment in and will take a 1.4 TC aswell.

The 70-200 L range are excellent, but the new 70-300 L lens is getting very good right ups and a few on here are raving about it, might be worth a consideration if you want the flexibility of a zoom over a prime, but need more than 200mm
 
andyred said:
..., but the new 70-300 L lens is getting very good right ups and a few on here are raving about it, might be worth a consideration if you want the flexibility of a zoom over a prime, but need more than 200mm
Click to expand...

Although it doesn't have the same reach as the 100-400L the 70-300L is a better lens in many ways. :thumbs:
 
I would go for the 70-200IS mkI. It's a fine lens and can be had for a good price. It was used by professionsals for ages before the mkII came out. That speaks for itself.

If I had to choose only one lens it would be that one within the price range.
 
postcardcv said:
I'm curious as to how the 70-300 is better than the 100-400? That is a genuine question as I like the 100-400 but have not used the 70-300.
Click to expand...

Well the IS system would be much improved. The 100-400 only has a one stop advantage whilst the 70-300 being new has I think 4? Although someone could confirm that. Makes a difference at these focal lengths.
 
andyred said:
The 300 F4 is a belter of a lens and def worth an investment in and will take a 1.4 TC aswell.

The 70-200 L range are excellent, but the new 70-300 L lens is getting very good right ups and a few on here are raving about it, might be worth a consideration if you want the flexibility of a zoom over a prime, but need more than 200mm
Click to expand...

70-300 is slower and won't take the 1.4x so well but does look nice
 
Wayne Els said:
I believe (don't own but read a lot of reviews as I intend buying the 70-300) that it has better IQ, better IS, is weather sealed, is smaller and lighter. But it obviously has a lot less reach which I guess for wildlife is important.
Click to expand...

Well, I can tell you I've used my 100-400 outside in torrential rain during sports and it's never let me down. I liked it so much I bought a second lens for my son to use. I also have the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the 1.4 ans 2x TC but the 100-400 still outperforms. A simply stunning lens for a zoom and a really useful range.
 
Back to the OP.

Primes are going to be faster than a zoom, but obviously you are going to have to be careful when framing. For versatility the 100-400L does take some beating.

In my experience the Sigma 50-500 & 150-500 were a little soft at the long ends. That could be me not being able to get the best out of the lens though. There are people that swear by their long Sigma's.

I had the same question last year as i was looking for a long lens to add to my kit. I eventually opted for the 100-400 as it means that you don't have to keep switching between it and a lower focal length, or carry a second camera with different lens.

Ok, you could go for the 400 prime, but you are not gaining much at the long end as both are f5.6. The prime could be sharper, but for non-professional use the 100-400 will be more than adequate.

Have a look at my shots with the Canon 100-400 L IS USM to give you an idea of what the lens can do. Most photos have the camera settings on there too.

If you are itching to spend that 1k then i would look on the forum ads for a used 100-400 and also compliment it with a battery grip for you body. The IS on the lens can drain the single battery pretty quickly.
 
Hi All,

thanks for the comments and all the food for thought.

Kaz, I did see your lens but was slightly put off by the zoom issue. I think I will save a few pennies more but good luck with the sale.

I do like the idea of the 70-200 but I think I would probably have the TC fitted most of the time, hence losing the advantage of the wider aperture. But I can also see the advantages of it.

As I'm struggling with 250 max at the moment I'm thinking that the 300 max may leave me wanting more :eek:!

I shall let the funds grow for a little while, (maybe!), and hopefully get a chance to test out a few before I commit my money.

Oh, and I will endeavour to try a Sigma before I completely rule them out!!!

Thanks all :thumbs:
 
I've got the 70-300mm L and love it, super sharp, fantastic IS. I think I've posted these shots on another thread, but here's an example taken hand held on a 7d.

Original - cropped slightly from out of camera...


Common Squirrel Monkey by TykeNRM Photography, on Flickr

Crop of above.....


Common Squirrel Monkey by TykeNRM Photography, on Flickr

I really love this lens!!!

Good luck making the decision......took me ages to make the same one and I plumped for the 70-300 L

Regards

Neil
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top