Lens advise please

eggbanjo

eggbanjo

Messages
464
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
No
I currently own a Canon 70-200L 2.8 is usm with a 1.4 converter. but feel I need a little longer reach and im considering trading it for a 100-400mm.
I know the 70-200mm is a superior lens and would love to keep it. But i really do need a little extra length for wildlife. and could not justify owning both
Would i be making a mistake and regret it?
any advise would be much appreciated.
 
I've done the same thing. I took a 100-400 in part ex against my 300/2.8. I didn't think I'd like it but I love the convenience. It's not as sharp as the 70-200 but it is sharper than a 70-200 with converters so made sense for me.
 
Do you need the fast aperture? If not, the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM might be up your street. It's an L series lens in disguise, apparently. Super sharp and IS is a bonus.

It's only an extra 100mm of reach but if that's enough it's a fantastic lens for a very reasonable price.

George.
 
BadgerLover said:
Do you need the fast aperture? If not, the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM might be up your street. It's an L series lens in disguise, apparently. Super sharp and IS is a bonus.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen of this lens it is simply not in the same league as the 70-200 or the 100-400. Whether it's a good plan to trade your 70-200 f2.8 for a 100-400 will depend on what you shoot. The 100-400 has a wider range so is a very versatile lens, but the 70-200 f2.8 will obviously have the edge in low light.
 
postcardcv said:
From what I've seen of this lens it is simply not in the same league as the 70-200 or the 100-400.
Click to expand...

It's not an L series lens so it's certainly not as good but it is extremely good considering the price. It's well known for being able to compete with the 70-200 f/4.

If you can afford it, the 70-200 or 100-400 will definately give you the best pictures. If you're trying to save yourself some pennies but still want a good similar length lens, the 70-300 f/4-5.6 (not the 75-300 or the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO) should be pretty close to, if not at, the top of your list of potentials. It's an absolute gem.

The OP is likely to go for an L lens as he's trading an L lens but I just threw it into the mix as a wildcard in case money is tight.

George.
 
I think alot of people still get confused when the 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS is quoted as there are several other lenses with similar names. The 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS is a very good lens for the money, probably the best of the budget zooms. The 75-300mm isn't a good lens, the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO is ideal as a travel lens because of its size, but it suffers from being soft and its over priced.

As for a wildlife lens, it depends what you're taking photo's of. Yes the 70-200mm just doesn't cut the mustard, and personally its performance with the TC's (even the 1.4x TC) just don't hit the mark for me. You could look at the sigma 100-300mm f4 (Jessops sell for £600 if you can find stock, nearly 1/2 price), the 100-400mm is a versitile lens and gives you the option of a zoom, but what about a prime, the 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6 are very good lenses, but I think 300mm is a minimum for wildlife.

Peter
 
The 70-200f4 i.s. is streets ahead of the 75-300 in sharpness,speed of autofocus and the i.s. is 4 stops not 3 a friend of mine has the 75-300i.s and he openly admits the 70-200 is far sharper even Andy Rouse said they are superb lenses. Ive used both and i make my living from photography another reason that the 70-200mm i.s is better is sheer build quality that said the 75-300mm still turns in decent images for the price of it. You notice the difference when you start zooming in at high magnifications
Regards
Lost
 
the 70-300 IS is a nice lens. but at the far of things is nothing like the quality I would expect from L glass.
if someone wants to lend me a 100-400L though I'll do some tests :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top