Which Canon L Lens?

I

Ian Wright

Guest
Hi folks, I have taken early retirement and decided to take up digital photography.

I am buying a Canon 5D Mk III and would like to shoot wildlife (birds mainly) and aircraft. My dilemma is, should I choose the Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS USM Mark II or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and a 2x converter when I need 400?

Your views and advice would be very much appreciated. Thanks.:)
 
Well the 70-200 isn't long enough for birds.

I'm not sure the 100-400 is either, with L lens money I'd get the Sigma 150-600 sport
 
Thank you for the heads up folks, that really is appreciated. Off to checkout the Sigma 150-600 sport right now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks again folks. I have been reading a couple of reviews about the sigma. They say the quality at long length may be less than the canon. Am I safe to assume this wont be an issue?
I like the fact that the Sigma is black and will looks well suited to a Canon 5D III and not as showy as the white/grey Canon lenses.
 
I have a Sigma 150-600 but the C version which to me as an amateur is very impressive. For birds you need a long lens, although I don't have one the Canon 600mm L is a better lens according to reviews but you have to pay 10x the price. If possible try before you buy even if you hire. Best of luck on your new hobby and enjoy your retirement.
 
Just my 2p!

The Canon 100-400 Mk2 is an excellent lens - especially if you need a fast focusing lens that allows you to be mobile! Having used both versions of the Sigma 150-600 and the Tamron I was not entirely happy with them. Yes they do offer more focal length but their AF is not up to what I need personally. Though they are great options if price is the main consideration.

For Birds I would really look at the Canon 600 F4 L IS Mk2, 500 F4 L IS Mk1 or 2 and the 800 F5.6 L IS. They are expensive but they do the job! I used to have the 600 F4LIS and now use the 800 F5.6 L IS - it is just the best lens I have, yet, tried for birding!

I should say that I would need a MAJOR increase in my income to get to the minimum for UK income tax - so if I can afford a Canon 800mm then there are no excuses. Sorry I had to say that because there are so many people out there who go and panic when a lens or camera get's expensive.
 
Having tried a canon 100-400 mk2 and having bought a sigma 150-600c I would go with sigma. The canon is a very good lens but for wildlife you need the reach. The 's' is a lot heavier so take that into consideration.
 
What about the 100-400 canon Mk II with a converter, that would give the reach. Wouldn't that be better?
 
Quite a way then. I may get back to you on that if that's ok Nick?
 
I have a Canon MkII DO 400MM on a 7D MkII with a 1.4 MKIII Converter, Exceptional.

Don't know if that would be long enough for your needs, it does help keep the weight down though.

Also Expensive.
 
Last edited:
Just been looking at some shots on here taken with a canon 70D and the C version of the 150-600..........very impressive so should the sport be better still?
 
I have an 80D and the 150-600 C and quite frankly I have been amazed at the quality of pictures I have had in particular of birds at 600mm
 
Ian Wright said:
Just been looking at some shots on here taken with a canon 70D and the C version of the 150-600..........very impressive so should the sport be better still?
Click to expand...

If you're interested in the Sigma (and you should be because you need more than 400mm ideally and its also excellent!), be sure to consider the Contemporary version. Its just as sharp, a bit smaller and lighter. I tested both and could not see a differene optically. The only advantage I saw with the sport was that the zoom ring turns further given the same amount of twist meaning you can zoom slightly quicker. But the size, cost and weight saving of the C sealed the deal for me.

Its worth noting the Sport is more solidly built (with better dealing?) but the C is built like a tank anyway :)
 
Thanks Jim. The reviews I have read say pretty much the same. They say the Sport is a better build quality and is metal where as the C is mainly plastic of some kind. They also say the Sport is better weather proofed.
 
Maybe consider a 7d2 rather than a 5d3 as the crop factor will lengthen your lens as well. 70-200 2.8 is a big heavy beast, you could consider the f4 version and a converter as both cameras will at at f8 but I think 70-200 will be a bit short even with a 2x converter.
 
Having had the C version and now using the S I have to say I do notice a difference in IQ. It is very small though and unless pixel peeping I doubt anyone could tell which lens was used tbh. Whether you could justify the extra money on that alone is hard to say but to me the build quality and weather proofing means it was wothwhile.

Well that and the fact I got the S at a very decent price, so much so it wasn't that much different to what the C was a selling for at the time.

The S is a heavy beast though and I came back from RIAT last year with my arms nearly dropping off from using it for 6 hours or so, pointing it upwards most of the time wasn't much fun.
 
Last edited:
MatBin said:
Maybe consider a 7d2 rather than a 5d3 as the crop factor will lengthen your lens as well.
Click to expand...

I have both cameras and have to agree with this. For wildlife and aviation I always pick up the 7D2 rather than the 5D3. Paired with the 100-400 Mkii and a 1.4x teleconverter mkiii it is superb.
 
MatBin said:
Maybe consider a 7d2 rather than a 5d3 as the crop factor will lengthen your lens as well.
Click to expand...
I have both these bodies too, and for birds in flight I usually go for the 7D2 for the crop factor and also the 10 frames a second when I need them. I only go for the 5D3 if the birds are quite close or if I need to bump the ISO up as the 7D2 can be noisy at higher ISO
I use a Sigma 150-600 C and also a 100-400mk1 which I sometimes have a 1.4x converter on. Without the converter the canon lens is a bit short for most of the locations I visit, but with it there is an impact on function so I tend to use the sigma more. The standard of my shots means there isn't much difference in qualtiy, maybe there would be if I was better at it :)
 
For the stated uses - birds and wildlife - I'd say a 7D Mk II would definitely be preferable to a 5D Mk III.

Last summer I paired the 100-400 Mk II with a 7D Mk II for a big wildlife trip - I don't like travelling with big lenses - and I have to say I was hugely impressed. The image quality was excellent, right down to pixel level. I don't think there's a better hand-holdable package around.
 
Thank you folks. I haven't committed to the 5D III yet so I will take on board what you advise and have a look at the 7D II. I had decided on the 5D III thinking the full frame would be better but obviously that appears to have been a schoolboy error, not that I can really remember being a schoolboy it was so long ago LOL.
 
Hi buy the Sigma 150-600 contemporary, fantastic lens, if you buy it with the 1.4 converter, you save a lot. After hours of research before I bought mine looking at the Sport vs Contemporary, the resounding opinion was unless you are going to use a tripod all the time, don't buy the sport.
I hand hold my contemporary all the time while photographing birds and planes you need the freedom away from a tripod.
But go to a camera shop and try the lenses on your camera and feel the weight.
 
Sorry just read last post, try the 7d mk2 my son bought one at Christmas with the sigma 150-600c and the pictures are fantastic
 
Another option could be to really push the boat out and get a 5D Mk IV and the Sigma 150-600 Sport. Thoughts on this idea appreciated. Thanks.
 
Ian Wright said:
Another option could be to really push the boat out and get a 5D Mk IV and the Sigma 150-600 Sport. Thoughts on this idea appreciated. Thanks.
Click to expand...
There's an old rule of thumb that says you should spend 1/3 of your budget on the camera and 2/3 on the lens. Obviously that's grossly simplistic. But still, £3500 for a camera and £1300 for a lens is virtually 3/4 of the budget on the camera, and I'd suggest that's probably the wrong priorities.

If I wanted the best birding kit I could get for nearly £5000, I'd look at trying to pick up a used Canon 500mm f/4 (Mk I), a 1.4x Mk III extender, and a 7D Mk II.
 
Thanks Stewart. From what your saying then the lens is the priority.
 
Thanks Mark, unfortunately I cannot access the sales area until I have been a member for 60 days :-(
 
Ian Wright said:
Thanks Mark, unfortunately I cannot access the sales area until I have been a member for 60 days :-(
Click to expand...

Yes, I am in the same position... busy writing lots of things to notch up another post... I have tried the 5d3 with a 100-400L and it was reassuringly heavy. I also tried it with a 600L and it was very heavy, but hey, I'm a girl! But, surprisingly, the shots(handheld) were not blurry!! I am definitely going for the 100-400 very soon. Good luck with your decision making.
 
Thank you Yvette, it's mind blowing to a beginner (especially at my age lol) Can't make a decision to save my life and when I do, I forget what it was 10 minutes later :confused:
 
Has anyone tried the new Tamron 150-600mm G2?
I had a quick play at an LCE event and found it slightly better than the Sigma C. Its a similar cost to the Sigma Sport version but same size & weight as the C.
My test shots were hand held in the car park so not ideal. I'm wondering if it justifies the higher cost over the C?
 
minibloke said:
Has anyone tried the new Tamron 150-600mm G2?
I had a quick play at an LCE event and found it slightly better than the Sigma C. Its a similar cost to the Sigma Sport version but same size & weight as the C.
My test shots were hand held in the car park so not ideal. I'm wondering if it justifies the higher cost over the C?
Click to expand...
Why did you think it was better (especially as your test shots were less than ideal :) )? I've not used one but I think they're pretty much as good as each other. Does the Tamron now incorporate their version of the dock (I heard this is why Tamron rushed out the G2)? If not, the Sigma has a big advantage there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top