Which Lens???

N

nclear

Messages
2
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone, this is my first post on here and was hoping to get some advice or feedback over which lens to buy. I'm currently using a canon 400d with an ef 75-300mm kit lens which is used primarily for motorsport and wildlife photography. Now I want to upgrade and Ive narrowed the options to 4 either Canon's 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 IS USM, Sigma's 150-500mm or the prime option of Canon's 300mm f4.0L or 400mm f5.6l USM(of which I've heard mixed views). I realise they all have their own pros and cons but my budget is £800 so hopfully this should get me a decent 2nd hand canon lens or a new sigma.Apologies for the long thread but any advice would be greatly appreciated.:thinking:
 
Welcome to TP :)

Canon 100-400L is the clear winner IMHO. It is sharp, has a very useful zoom range, plus IS. It is also very well made and affordable.

There's nothing else quite like it, one of Canon's best long lenses. It's rightly very popular, and holds it value :thumbs: It's a no brainer if you ask me.
 
some interesting comments here. 70-200 2.8 might also be worth considering as you'd get a new one from Kerso pretty much.
 
Well I have owned the 100-400, 400 f5.6 and the 300 f4 and they are all very good lenses, all have pros and cons. For out and out sharpness at 400mm the 456 is unbeatable it is on the same level as the big primes, but the lack of IS and poor close focus are downsides. The 300 f4 gives you the option on an f4 lens for low light or adding a 1.4x for more reach in good conditions - IS and 1.5m close focus make it a very good butterfly lens. The 100-400 is a mix of the two IS, good close focus and decent sharpness (in the real world you'll struggle to see much difference between it and the prime unless you're looking at files at 100%) and on top of that a useful zoom range.

I'd rate them as follows:
AF speed - 400 f5.6 > 300 f4 > 100-400 > 300 f4 with 1.4x
Close focus - 300 f4 > 100-400 > 400 f5.6
IQ - 400 f5.6 (just) > 300 f4 > 100-400 > 300 f4 with 1.4x

Rate them for use:
wildlife lens - 400 f5.6 > 100-400 > 300 f4
people - 100-400 > 300 f4 > 400 f5.6
general lens - 100-400 > 300 f4 > 400 f5.6

It's a matter of working out which suits your needs best, I currently use the 100-400 as I love the versatility of it but also have a 300 f4 (the old no IS version) for when needed. As for the Sigma, I have only tested it breifly but was not impressed - I know a couple of people who have bought them, all have now sold them and replaced with Canon lenses...
 
Another vote for the Canon 100-400 from me. I've been using this lens now for the last four or five years at least. I use it mainly for aviation but its great for motorsport and wildlife too. Its got a good range, its sharp and as the others have said has built in IS as well.

I also use a Canon 70-200F2.8L which is as sharp as a sharp thing (non IS version). With that you also have the option of using a 2x converter to effectively give you the same maximum reach as the 100-400
 
Thanks for all the comments I'm pretty much decided on the 100-400mm, think I might save the extra and plug for a new one though as second hand values seem very strong :thumbs:
 
don't bother with the 100-400 on dusty rallies if the dust pump reports are to be believed!
 
c_robinson said:
don't bother with the 100-400 on dusty rallies if the dust pump reports are to be believed!
Click to expand...

They are not to be believed IMO

I used the 100-400 for my first two years of motorsport, including one of the dustiest rallies I have ever been on. No more dust on my sensor than with the 120-300 I replaced it with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top