Mid range Canon lens...

Joeturner11

Joeturner11

Messages
6,448
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
No
Currently looking for a lens to use mainly for wildlife, specially when I photograph species up close and personal, I'm currently left with a gap between 40mm and 500mm which isn't ideal! I'm currently leaning towards the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6L more than anything as its modern, flexible range, IS (isn't a big thing but nice to have) and well built with great IQ according to the reviews.

I have looked at the following lenses listed below, I could spend a bit more but for the use it will have I'm only looking for a sharp lens to do the occasional job not spending more than the £700 mark. Any other suggestions are gladly welcome.

Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM NON IS
Canon 70-200mm f/4L NON IS
Canon 300mm f/4L USM IS
 
I've tried the 70-200 2.8 non IS and was very disappointed with the image quality. Was offered one for a very good price but turned it down.

I've had the 70-300 non L in the past and really enjoyed it, the IS is pretty impressive but I felt the image quality wasn't there from 250mm onwards. I would be tempted by the L, gets very good review on The Digital Picture and if you look at the lens image quality tool retains good image quality at the far end. Up to 200 mm the two versions are pretty close. Only thing to consider is that f5.6 at the far end, depending on what body you are using it may really limit you at fast shutter speeds. I tried birds with my 7D mki and I wasn't happy with the ISO I had to use. Prob wouldn't be an issue on my 5D mkiii I have now.

I have the 70-200 f4 IS bought second hand from here, extremely sharp. Non IS isn't as sharp particularly at the long end and bare in mind its not weather sealed.

Can't speak personally for the prime, if you are going to be right at the end of a zoom all the time it makes sense. Again the f4 isnt weather sealed. Depends what you plan on shooting.
 
Last edited:
Just another thought. The new Sigma 150-600 contemporary is getting very good reviews, but not weather sealed and f 6.3 at the far end.
 
Whippet said:
I've tried the 70-200 2.8 non IS and was very disappointed with the image quality. Was offered one for a very good price but turned it down.

I've had the 70-300 non L in the past and really enjoyed it, the IS is pretty impressive but I felt the image quality wasn't there from 250mm onwards. I would be tempted by the L, gets very good review on The Digital Picture and if you look at the lens image quality tool retains good image quality at the far end. Up to 200 mm the two versions are pretty close. Only thing to consider is that f5.6 at the far end, depending on what body you are using it may really limit you at fast shutter speeds. I tried birds with my 7D mki and I wasn't happy with the ISO I had to use. Prob wouldn't be an issue on my 5D mkiii I have now.

I have the 70-200 f4 IS bought second hand from here, extremely sharp. Non IS isn't as sharp particularly at the long end and bare in mind its not weather sealed.

Can't speak personally for the prime, if you are going to be right at the end of a zoom all the time it makes sense. Again the f4 isnt weather sealed. Depends what you plan on shooting.
Click to expand...

Firstly thanks Tom for your detailed reply! Interesting to hear you have had a bad experience with 70-200mm f/2.8L NON IS, regarding the 70-300mm L the f/5.6 at the long end doesn't concern me much apart from the fact I then won't have any gear in my kit bag that is f/2.8 glass. There doesn't seem to be many people using it which makes you question how good it really is...I have read many reviews saying the 70-200m f/4 versions are extremely sharp which is great to hear for the price but read also the focusing slacks with fast moving subjects compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8, not sure how true that is. The 300mm f/4 is very very appealing to me but then leaves me with a 40 to 300mm gap in reach, something that really could become a pain, the new Sigma 150-600mm does look good specially for the price but I don't need that sort of lens as I don't need to go above 300mm really as I will be using this lens along side a 500mm f/4 prime.
 
Whippet said:
I think a lot of people are put off by the variable aperture and 'slow' f 5.6 which is unusual for an L lens. Brian from The Digital Picture takes his for safaris to complement a longer prime. Have a read here.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Telephoto-Lens.aspx

I would have got one if the used 70-200 f4 is didn't show up on here when I was making my decision.
Click to expand...

It maybe the lens I will seriously consider getting, had a look at the one on the classifieds, if I can get it for the right price I may buy it...
 
Whippet said:
I've tried the 70-200 2.8 non IS and was very disappointed with the image quality. Was offered one for a very good price but turned it down.
Click to expand...

You must have got one that had been dropped or banged? I have a Mk1 70-200 L f2.8 non IS and there is nothing wrong with the image quality at all. It delivers me sharp images all day long even wide open.
 
That could be true, but what I saw seemed to fall in line with other users experiences and reviews. It is a 20 year old design after all and would never be as sharp as the 2.8 IS mkii or 4 IS which have a reputation as the sharpest canon zooms available.
 
Last edited:
I also have a 70-200 F2.8 non IS, I'm very impressed with mine :)

Also have used a 300 f4 and 70-200 F4 non IS. Both are nice lenses.

I currently use the 70-200 F2.8 non IS alongside my 500 F4 and find it a very good combination.

I would also be tempted to look at a Sigma 120-300 F2.8... I really enjoyed using mine, it's just too heavy to start carrying that and the 500 so it had to go!
 
I was looking at the 300mm F4L for a friend since it seems to offer a decent magnification compared to most other lenses (especially with a 25mm tube fitted) but the lens design itself is pretty ancient so I was wondering just how sharp it is.

I personally have a gap between my 100mm F2.8L and my 200-400mm F4L but the only lens I'd want for that is the 70-200mm F2.8L mk2 and that's another expensive lens for a relatively small range that I don't use much so I decided to just wait!
 
70-200 f4 non IS will be well within your budget Joe. I had one and it was very good. Traded it for a 2.8 MkII coz I wanted IS.

Should be able to get 70-200 f4 IS in your budget also. In fact you can get one new for under 700 with paramoz. Must admit I would rather have IS than not.

300 f4 is a sharp lens but ISO is only 2 stop and the build shows its age compared to the more recent lenses. AF seems to have quite a long throw and I always felt the AF was a bit slow.

Can't comment on the 70-300 L as although I've used one it was for a very short time, not enough to form an opinion on it.
 
Gaz J said:
70-200 f4 non IS will be well within your budget Joe. I had one and it was very good. Traded it for a 2.8 MkII coz I wanted IS.

Should be able to get 70-200 f4 IS in your budget also. In fact you can get one new for under 700 with paramoz. Must admit I would rather have IS than not.

300 f4 is a sharp lens but ISO is only 2 stop and the build shows its age compared to the more recent lenses. AF seems to have quite a long throw and I always felt the AF was a bit slow.

Can't comment on the 70-300 L as although I've used one it was for a very short time, not enough to form an opinion on it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply mate, interesting to hear the 300mm f/4 was bit slow focus, Really need a lens with quick focus and can happily lock on to quick subjects. Regarding IS it isn't something I would personally, I previously owned the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8VR II before all this and never even turned the VR on, hence why I'm not looking for a IS related lens, a nice feature to have yes, but for me a waste of money spending extra just for that feature, I could happily buy the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8IS II but I really don't think I need all the IS etc it has over the non IS version which reviews are saying is not far off on sharpness. The 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6L is really appealing to me but the worry off being a variable aperture zoom and f/5.6 at the long end is something of a worry to me.
 
Last edited:
Hi Joe

Not on your original list, but obviously mentioned above, just get a 70-200f2.8ISLII used for about £1100 or so and never look back. IMVHO the Canon version of this lens is MUCH better than the Nikon version. If I moved back to Canon this would be the first lens I would buy, bar none.

This lens takes x1.4 and x2 TCs VERY well to give you plenty of versatility.

If you get anything else you will ALWAYS wish you had gone for this lens.

Just my £0.02.
 
Last edited:
gary43 said:
Hi Joe

Not on your original list, but obviously mentioned above, just get a 70-200f2.8ISLII used for about £1100 or so and never look back. IMVHO the Canon version of this lens is MUCH better than the Nikon version.

This lens takes x1.4 and x2 TCs VERY well to give you plenty of versatility.

If you get anything else you will ALWAYS wish you had gone for this lens.

Just my £0.02.
Click to expand...

Very good point mate, I could safely by the 70-200mm f/2.8ISLII, another reason why I'm currently thinking against that is simply weight, I don't mind carrying the weight around with me but the airline carry on weight the 70-300mm is half the weight, I do a fair bit off hoping on and off planes and will be doing alot more in the near future so travel gear is the main reason I'm looking at these not so big and expensive lenses to run along side the 500mm f/4 which will take up 40% of the weight. I get what your saying mate about having the best option, thats what I did when I had my Nikon setup but I used the lens far to little to warrant the money I paid for it in all honesty.
 
Although I'm no longer a Canon user, I had both the Canon 70-200 F2.8 mkii IS, and the 70-200 F4 non IS, and, when doing my vole shots, both lenses worked well.... the flipside with the 70-200 F4, is that it isn't too heavy either.
 
I think that unless you want to use primes then the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L mk2 is the ultimate lens for that range.

As for the weight, I had the same problem when I flew to Canada last time since my lens collection took me over 10kg. I read the rules though and it said I was allowed a 10kg bag that would fit in the measurements specified but it also stated I could take another additional electronic item like a small camera bag/laptop bag etc.

My 200-400mm without a body on and with the hood reversed fit within the measurements specified so my plan was to just hold it separately and hope for the best! Turns out they never bothered checking the weight so I never found out if I was definitely alright lol.
 
gary43 said:
Hi Joe, fair point above about the weight if you travel a lot.
Click to expand...

I know 0.5kg isn't much mate but it all adds up and 10kg isn't much these days with the gear! The 7D II with battery grip and 500mm f/4 along with converter takes up 55% of the online carry on!

Phal said:
I think that unless you want to use primes then the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L mk2 is the ultimate lens for that range.

As for the weight, I had the same problem when I flew to Canada last time since my lens collection took me over 10kg. I read the rules though and it said I was allowed a 10kg bag that would fit in the measurements specified but it also stated I could take another additional electronic item like a small camera bag/laptop bag etc.

My 200-400mm without a body on and with the hood reversed fit within the measurements specified so my plan was to just hold it separately and hope for the best! Turns out they never bothered checking the weight so I never found out if I was definitely alright lol.
Click to expand...

I use a Think Tank Airport commuter mate for my airline stuff mate, great deep bag and fits the big lens nicely, and looks quite small when its on your back, I really do struggle with the weight limit, I don't want to brake the limit as I travel a lot so there is bound to be a time the weigh it then I'm bugged lol!
 
Joeturner11 said:
I know 0.5kg isn't much mate but it all adds up and 10kg isn't much these days with the gear! The 7D II with battery grip and 500mm f/4 along with converter takes up 55% of the online carry on!



I use a Think Tank Airport commuter mate for my airline stuff mate, great deep bag and fits the big lens nicely, and looks quite small when its on your back, I really do struggle with the weight limit, I don't want to brake the limit as I travel a lot so there is bound to be a time the weigh it then I'm bugged lol!
Click to expand...

Last time I just used the rucksack that I normally cart my stuff around in anyway. It's just a military style 72hr rucksack so quite roomy if you fill it but can shrink down to fit into overhead lockers if it's not packed out. I was able to fit everything in there but it was over the limit with my 200-400 in there but not when it was separate. Just saying it's worth checking the allowances in case you can carry a little bit on the side :) obviously check with the airline first if it's a bit ambiguous.

We've veered off course a bit here with the topic but with flexibility and quality in mind, there's nothing that beats the 70-200mm F2.8L mk2 imo. The only downsides there are weight/price/size

A 100 or 200mm prime isn't as flexible but definitely lighter :)
 
Phal said:
Last time I just used the rucksack that I normally cart my stuff around in anyway. It's just a military style 72hr rucksack so quite roomy if you fill it but can shrink down to fit into overhead lockers if it's not packed out. I was able to fit everything in there but it was over the limit with my 200-400 in there but not when it was separate. Just saying it's worth checking the allowances in case you can carry a little bit on the side :) obviously check with the airline first if it's a bit ambiguous.

We've veered off course a bit here with the topic but with flexibility and quality in mind, there's nothing that beats the 70-200mm F2.8L mk2 imo. The only downsides there are weight/price/size

A 100 or 200mm prime isn't as flexible but definitely lighter :)
Click to expand...

Military rucksack is certainly a good idea, how you separate you gear, you put compartments in it? The 70-200mm f/2.8L MK II is a really good idea its just the weight side of things for traveling abroad that worries me, will have to calculate the weight limit I have got left to take with me and have a think on it...
 
Yeah I like the rucksack :) I spent a while looking for something I could use to separate everything like dividers but eventually I just gave up lol. I had found something that looked ideal but it was from some unknown Chinese seller and never seemed to reappear on Ebay. There's plenty of stuff to look at if you search for 'DSLR padded insert' on Ebay but I'm a bit of a perfectionist and I ended up not buying anything because I couldn't find anything that fit the dimensions of the bag perfectly :/ lol

For going on the plane there's nothing in the bag apart from the lenses and camera tbh just to save on weight. I don't plan on dropping it and I'm the only one picking it up generally so it's my own fault if something gets broken. At best I just separate lenses with the bags they come in if they're Canon and Sigma ones come in their own little padded bag anyway so they're ok (my 18-35mm).
 
Also get some combat/cargo trousers with plenty of pockets and carry lenses in those? lol
 
Joe the 300f4 has a decent mfd so it's pretty good on insects and stuff. Long lens macro if you will. But it's no 300 2.8.! I love mine and would never sell it.! I also think my 70-200 4 is is tack sharp as well, so it's how much you want to spend I guess.?! And what your needs are.?
 
One that's not been mentioned so far Joe is the canon 100-400 (Mk I or II). Both excellent lenses and not heavy in comparison to the 2.8 Mk II.

Yes, you'll lose a little at the 40-100 end but it will then work really well with the 500.
 
Cheffievrs said:
so it's how much you want to spend I guess.?! And what your needs are.?
Click to expand...

As per the start of the thread ideally I want to spend around £700 but can double that if needs be & I need the lens for close up wildlife with good AF, i.e Farne Islands portraits, Deer and close up Mammals etc.

Buck said:
One that's not been mentioned so far Joe is the canon 100-400 (Mk I or II). Both excellent lenses and not heavy in comparison to the 2.8 Mk II.

Yes, you'll lose a little at the 40-100 end but it will then work really well with the 500.
Click to expand...

The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 MK II is a stunner of a lens but for the price of that I would personally prefer to put a couple of hundred quid on top and get a Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS I...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top