First foray into telephoto

S

Steve W

Messages
266
Edit My Images
No
Hi

I'm wondering if anyone can advise me on either a Canon 70-300 L (112-480) or Canon 100-400 L (160-640) telephoto lens for my canon 450d?

This would be my first telephoto lens, and I'd like to use it when I go away as I plan on visiting Howletts wildlife park during our holiday.

I'm looking at hiring either one of the lenses from Lenses For Hire first to see how I get on. I'm thinking the 100-400 offers more reach so would be best suited, but just wanted to get some feedback.

Would I need a monopod / tripod with either lens??

Thanks
 
I've had both.
The 100-400 is far far superior in every aspect (including the price).
I took a lot of photo's of kites (the birds), and with the 70-300 I was always happy when I could make out the eyes. first picture with the 100-400 and the detail was in the feathers.... incredible difference, even at comparable zoom lengths.

That said, for the price, I thought the 70-300 was a cracker, and it accompanied me on my first safari with some stonking results.

what it comes down to.... price, if you can afford the 100-400, do it. :D

didn't need a tri/mono on the 70-300, and the 100-400 is hand-holdable, so not essential.

eta, had both these on my 450d too.

here endeth my twopennyworth :D
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the quick reply, were you talking about the non-L 70-300 Canon lens as the L version is £1300 ish?

Cheers
 
ah, lol
yes I was.
hadn't appreciated there was an L version, as my first foray was through the non-L route.

in which case ignore my rambling statement above :D
 
Although your comments on reach are applicable. Sounds like you appreciated the extra 100mm....
 
The 70-300 is lighter, sharper (within the comparable range), weather sealed and has more effective IS.

The 100-400 has an extra 100mm, but is heavier, has older IS (about 2 stops effective), not as sharp in the 100-300 range as the 70-300 and not weather sealed.

Personally I wouldn't trade the extra 100mm of my 100-400 for the advantages of the 70-300, I most often use it at 400mm. But the 70-300L is undoubtedly a better choice if you can get on with the shorter range.
 
Last edited:
You may also want to look at Sigma's 120-400 and 150-500, I have the latter and it is an excellent wildlife lens with a superb OS system.
 
Thanks for the advice, very much appreciated.

The Sigma's 120-400 and 150-500 do not seem to be available from Lensesforhire :(, I'd like to hire the lens first to see how I get on with it.

I have been reading about the 100-400 and it looks like it's about 12 years old so not surprised the 70-300 is better! (must be due for a MkII soon)

Would IS be something I need to worry about, as wildlife moves a lot so I thought IS is not really a concern when shooting moving targets :thinking:

It looks like the extra 100mm would be worth it for wildlife (or an extra 160mm on my crop body).

How practical is it to carry the said lenses around all day? Do people use special bags for these larger lenses? Would I need anything on top of the lens pouch you get with the L series lens when I hire one?

Sorry for all the questions

Thanks
 
It's heavy but manageable.
Fit's into my lowepro mini trekker with no problems, even gets into my smaller lowepro toploader 55.

The IS is good enough, it makes handholding considerably easier in good light and poor light. The lowest I'd go handholding at 400mm is 1/250sec. Sharp shots at slower speeds are possible, but 1/250sec is a low as I want to go on moving subjects anyway.

It's old, but still a great lens.
 
Great,

Thanks for the advice, it sounds like the 100-400 is the one to hire for my holiday and zoo trip.

Just have to make sure it will fit into my Lowpro Fastpack 200, will measure it tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top