Which telephoto zoom? (Canon)

Schuette

Schuette

Messages
70
Name
Ellen
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello!

I've just switched from Pentax to Canon due to several things but mainly kicked off from my K10D going kaput. :'( So I'm having to rebuild my kit. My Pentax kit was never huge in the first place, a load of old manual lenses and a Sigma 28-70mm F/2.8 and a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6.

I have a 60D with a 18-135mm kit lens (going to get the 50mm f/1.8 very soon) but from now on want to save up and splash out a bit on better lenses. This is something I didn't really (with the exception of the 28-70mm) do with Pentax as I never felt completely comfortable with the options available. Now with Canon I almost have too many options! :bonk:

I basically have three main ones...

1. Save up for a couple of months and get something like the 70-200mm F/4 L and a 400mm prime in the future.

2. Buy a cheap Sigma for now and save up for something like the 70-200mm F/4 IS L or 70-200mm F/2.8 L or 70-300mm F/4-5.6 L in the future.

3. Skip the cheap lens and save for an expensive one and just make do with a reach of 135mm.

I'm going round and round in circles on this one and just cannot decide what to do. I'm going to resort to a hat and bits of paper soon!

I shoot a bit of everything (motorsport, pets, landscape, nature) but try to do portraiture mainly. Portraits are something I would like to try and do professionally in the future. I'm also planning on in the future getting some primes to add to the kit.
 
Have you considered the 100-400 L ? Could be a lens to almost fill that whole focal range by itself.

Probably the highest quality (sharpness) route you could go would be to get the 70-200 f4 L and the 400 f5.6 L prime (which on average allowing for sample variations is sharper than the 100-400 and focusses faster). The prime doesn't have image stabilisation though if that's a problem.
 
Having owned a 100-400L and now the owner of a 70-300L, I much prefer the latter even though it has less reach.
 
I would love the 100-400 but it would be a while before I could get it and I'd be concerned about how heavy it is so I'd kinda dismissed that one. For portraiture I don't think I'd need all that reach either. I'm edging closer and closer to the 70-200 and later the 400 but can't decide whether I would need IS?
 
Last edited:
cdiver2 said:
100-400 L without a doubt
Click to expand...
+1
motorsports and nature are mentioned in your subjects list. You would have no regret having 100-400 and used it's attainable for some one looking at 70-200f4 new. you might cover portraits with your 50 prime, if your doing head shots you may want longer though. The 100-400 is also quite light for it's range
 
Last edited:
Out of interest roughly how much does it weigh? I think I'm going to bear that lens in consideration for the future and go with the 70-200 for now. I can always sell on the 70-200 and get a used 100-400 in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top