Which Canon all-rounder zoom?

Deano

Deano

Messages
514
Edit My Images
Yes
I recently purchased a Canon L series 100-400mm lens which is great but rather heavy. Im' looking for a zoom a bit smaller and have my eye on the 70-200mm f4 L series or a 70-300mm IS USM lens. I had also been looking at the 28-300 L series lens. Weight is a big factor here as i dont want something that weighs as much as my 100-400mm.
I need something that is a good all round lens and ideal for nice candid shots. Something i can have on my camera all day. Any advice appreciated.
 
Well, you can rule out the 28-300L then, as it's heaver than the 100-400L.
 
I know it is a drop in quality from the 100-400 but there are some fine lenses that cover the 18-200(+) range. I'm considering one for a single lens solution for 'walkabout'
 
You could consider the sigma 70-200 F2.8, it's light(compared to canon equivalent), and if you get a sigma 1.4 TC to go with it, it makes an excellent carry round, which I do frequently with this combo when walking the dogs.
 
Think you need to define all rounder a bit beter in this case, to most of us an all rounder on a crop body would be something like an 18-200mm as that will let you take everything from a wide landscape therough nice portraits and onto reasonable wildlife. You seem to just want a short Telephoto, what are you planning on shooting with this allrounder? If it is a short telephoto you want and it needs to be light I'd consider the 70-200 F4
 
Mmm..im after a nice walk around all day lens. After doing a bit more digging its going to be the 70-200 f4 L or the 70-300 DO (bit this has had very mixed reviews).

Regarding the 70-200 f4 L. Is the 70-200 'IS' model worth the extra few hundred pounds or not?
 
Deano said:
Mmm..im after a nice walk around all day lens. After doing a bit more digging its going to be the 70-200 f4 L or the 70-300 DO (bit this has had very mixed reviews).

Regarding the 70-200 f4 L. Is the 70-200 'IS' model worth the extra few hundred pounds or not?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't call either of those a walkabout lens, far to long at the shot end if you know what I mean.

The 7-200 F4L is definately the better of those two if you can afford to be without the extra 100mm.

IS is nice to have if you can afford it, I have an ancient 70-210 F4 and do fid myself wishing I could hand hold it with a slower shutter speed especially at this time of year.
 
squidgeyem said:
I got the 70-300 and it's fab :)
Click to expand...

:agree:

I went the other way, and purchased the 70-300mm first, before buying my 100-400mm just before Christmas as I was in search of some added length :thinking: no comments please!

But I am still very pleased with my 70-300mm lens and have always been pleased with the results and being far lighter means I am more likely to take it out.
 
If you want it for candids and size/weight is a factor how about the 70-300 DO IS.
 
Right then...just ordered the 70-200mm f4 L (non IS) for the grand sum of £456.99. To be honest i was lucky to find anywhere that had any lenses in stock. There seems to be a real shortage throughout the country.
 
Deano said:
Right then...just ordered the 70-200mm f4 L (non IS) for the grand sum of £456.99. To be honest i was lucky to find anywhere that had any lenses in stock. There seems to be a real shortage throughout the country.
Click to expand...

You don't mess around do you:D
 
I have the 70-200 F4 L IS - it is very, very sharp indeed. Very impressed with it, but I will need to sell it soon to raise some funds unfortunately.
 
Other good Canon zooms are the 70-300 IS (had one - very sharp, slower focussing but lovely colours & contrast) and the old 100-300 USM (non IS) is a cracker, and can be picked up very cheap if you can find one on eBay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top