Which Canon zoom lens?

BIGEYE

BIGEYE

Messages
1,205
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Some time back I purchased a Canon EF 100-400 f4.5/5.6L IS USM lens, and sold my Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens (non-IS) to offset the cost. I used the 70-200 mostly as my walkabout lens for street photography and miss it dearly. Whilst I am happy with the 100-400 for the function i use it most (rugby), I invariably have it on a monopod, and due to its weight, it cannot fill the gap of my 70-200mm.
Selling the 70-200 has left a hole in my kit, I have the 100-400 which is too heavy for walkabout, and I have Sigma 17-70mm which is a great lens but too short for street photography.
I am on a tight budget and looking for something to fill the gap left by my 70-200, what lens should I consider?
 
How about the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX HSM II? I've recently purchased one and its a beautiful lens, and at half the price of the Canon equivalent.

Stunning IQ and built like a tank!
 
Nice looking lens, do you mind me asking where you bought your lens?
 
I got mine from Amazon UK which is an authorised Sigma retailer so you can apply for the free 3 yr extended warranty if you buy from them (but make sure its direct from Amazon and not their marketplace!).

They have them for about £600 at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Depending on your finances,and is probably more than you want to spend the new Canon 70-300L lens is very compact has USM and IS.
Could be what you are looking for, Warehouse Express I think are the cheapest with free delivery.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
If that's the range you want I'd buy another 70-200 f4, possibly look for a second hand one.

Personally I use a 24-105 as my walkabout lens
 
Why not another 70-200 f/4L? it's a fair bit smaller and lighter than the siggy 70-200 f/2.8, which is as good as as heavy as your 100-400! The sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM II is only 25g lighter than the 100-400mm.

As a light weight 70-200, the f/4L is unmatched.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I do like the Canon, but the wife would not be too happy if I bought the same lens as I sold. I have gone for the Sigma, as it is a lens that I considered in the past and it has good reviews.
Thanks to odd jim for reminding me about the Sigma, got it from Onestop Digital as they are by far the cheapest. Cost an extra £10 for 7 year warranty.
 
BIGEYE said:
Yes, I do like the Canon, but the wife would not be too happy if I bought the same lens as I sold. I have gone for the Sigma, as it is a lens that I considered in the past and it has good reviews.
Thanks to odd jim for reminding me about the Sigma, got it from Onestop Digital as they are by far the cheapest. Cost an extra £10 for 7 year warranty.
Click to expand...

I thought that you said the 100-400mm was too heavy for you?

The Sigma is almost exactly the same weight, as any /2.8 will be, or there abouts.
 
The siggy is certainly not a light lens but the weight is perfectly manageable. I've used it for hours at various sporting events without issue.
 
BIGEYE said:
Yes, I do like the Canon, but the wife would not be too happy if I bought the same lens as I sold. I have gone for the Sigma, as it is a lens that I considered in the past and it has good reviews.
Thanks to odd jim for reminding me about the Sigma, got it from Onestop Digital as they are by far the cheapest. Cost an extra ?10 for 7 year warranty.
Click to expand...

I would be very interested to hear how you get on with your new siggy. I am seriously thinking of getting a Canon 70-200 f4L IS, but it costs considerably more than the Sigma, plus I would prefer to buy new.

Any feedback from anyone who has tried both would be very much appreciated.
________
Lovely Wendie99
 
Last edited:
The new Canon 70-300L is way over my budget at present. I think the Sigma will be easier to handle as it is not as long.
 
Like Mark said, the Sigma 2.8 is as heavy as the 100-400.

If you really want cheap, plus reasonable IQ, then it's probably worth checking out the EFS 55-250.
 
Hi gang, after reading your comments and much consideration, I had a play with my 100-400 and decided it is too heavy for a long day street photography, so I wouldn't enjoy the Sigma. And so I have cancelled my order for the Sigma.
I am now ordering the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens (non-IS) as it is half the weight. This has blown my budget, the IS version was way out of reach at this stage.

Hope I've done the right thing!
 
Last edited:
BIGEYE said:
Hi gang, after reading your comments and much consideration, I had a play with my 100-400 and decided it is too heavy for a long day street photography, so I wouldn't enjoy the Sigma. And so I have cancelled my order for the Sigma.
I am now ordering the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens (non-IS) as it is half the weight. This has blown my budget, the IS version was way out of reach at this stage.

Hope I've done the right thing!
Click to expand...

But the 70-200 (1310g) is almost the same weight as the 100-400 (1380g). I'm still not sure why you're ignoring the 55-250 (390g)?
 
Why not get the canon 70-200 f4 with IS, its great small ish and light and a step up from the lens you sold.

or maybe the sigma 100-300 f4 just a thought.
 
BIGEYE said:
Hi gang, after reading your comments and much consideration, I had a play with my 100-400 and decided it is too heavy for a long day street photography, so I wouldn't enjoy the Sigma. And so I have cancelled my order for the Sigma.
I am now ordering the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM Lens (non-IS) as it is half the weight. This has blown my budget, the IS version was way out of reach at this stage.

Hope I've done the right thing!
Click to expand...

Hmmm, not sure I understand this! The Canon 70-200 f2.8L is only about a few 60g lighter than the Sigma (the non IS f2.8 Canon is 1310g, Sigma being 1370g) and twice the price! Its certainly not twice the performance, not at least on a crop anyway where you dont use the corner image!

The Canon 70-200 f4L is half the weight however...

The suggestion of the 55-50 IS as a walkabout / street lens is a good one as well - its another lens I own which I had never considered for street togging. Small, light, great range and good IS.
 
Last edited:
No 70-200 f/2.8 is going to be significantly lighter than the 100-400.
 
Seems that all the 'big' lenses are much about the same weight. However the Canon 70-200 f4L IS is looking attractive as it is half the weight.
I would have liked the f2.8 (non-IS) but it is too heavy for walkabouts. I am going to look at the reviews on the Canon 55-250, and any others I should consider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top