Lens advice for Canon (1 Viewer)

[Oatcake]

I've decided to replace my 70-300 USM canon lens with something a bit better. I'm looking to spend about £500.

I'm looking for something that I can use handheld when I'm out walking and happen to see something interesting (off to Arran, Islay, Jura and Colonsay in 3 weeks) but also stick on a tripod in a hide or out and about.

I'm torn between:

Canon F4 70-200 non-IS : I think this would be good for handheld and image qual seems okay but 200mm even on a crop sensor isn't much.

Sigma 120-400 F4.5-5.6 OS : image stabilization will be useful but I'm not sure if the greater weight will make it useless for the times when I want to use it handheld.

Canon 70-300 IS : Slightly newer version of the lens I've got. So AF accuracy at 300mm is still going to be poor, but the IS may help improve my image quality a bit.

Saving up for anything more than £500 is out of the question. If I wanted a £2000 lens I could buy it now, I just don't think I would get the enjoyment out of it to justify the cost.

Interested to here what other people have decided to do in similar circumstances - particularly those who aren't "great" photographers. Most of the reviews of the lenses have some really lovely photos - but I think I'd struggle!

Thanks for any advice.

 

[Jaff]

Well how would you feel at about £800-900 then? You can have one of the '3 affordable birding L's' at that price, s/h that is and would stand you in much better stead than those lenses listed. And of the 3 I think the 100-400mm might be the best for you as you are already used to using a zoom.

 

[micloi]

From the ones you mention the 120-400 would be, IMHO, the best choice for birding and it is not really that heavy. My wife was using the 50-500 (which is quite heavier) for long hikes without any problems.

 

[Common Crane]

Hello Oatcake,

it seems you are looking for an IS lens, but if you might consider just upgrading in terms of light gathering ability and image quality have a look at the canon 200mm L II lens.
I bought it yesterday secondhand (mint) for 470€ and I am truly impressed.
I have already the 70-200L IS (MK I) and two TCs (1,5 Kenko + 2,0 Canon II)
but I wanted something lighter and to fit in the quick - access department of my little photo - rucksack. It weighs only around 750g and fits there with the Kenko TC mounted on the 60d.

Just after fixing it together with the Kenko 1,5x to the camera I had a lucky situation, a black kite with some food in his claws passed.

Here are two photos of the series I made, for birds in flight. I found very few difference without the IS, most of the photos were usable. The other two photos show the difference in size of the Kenko/prime lens combo to the Canon2x/70-200zoom combo.

Reinhard

 

[ramfan]

TBH, you can find a Sigma 150-500 OS used nowadays for just over £500. Might be worth a look ?

If you are really lucky you mght pick up a Canon 100-400L used for about £750 which, I think, would be a superb option.

Both of the above would be better IMHO than your selectons detailed above. I appreciate that you might not want to purchase used gear but most people do look after such lensese really well.

Good luck with your choices.

 

[David Smith]

Interested to here what other people have decided to do in similar circumstances - particularly those who aren't "great" photographers. Thanks for any advice.

Well how would you feel at about £800-900 then? You can have one of the '3 affordable birding L's' at that price, s/h that is and would stand you in much better stead than those lenses listed. And of the 3 I think the 100-400mm might be the best for you as you are already used to using a zoom.

Funny that Jaff was the 1st to respond to that:-O
But I would concur with him.......I have the 100-400 together with 3002.8 which I use 99% of the time but can't bring myself to sell the 100-400 as it is such a good & versatil lense.

 

[Oatcake]

I was originally looking at the 100-400. I was first put off by the "vacuum cleaner" reviews that left me worried about buying a second hand one. And then I saw a few reviews that didn't show much difference between the Sigma 120-400 and the Canon 100-400 @400mm.

I think £900 seems to much for something I'll use a few times a month.

 

[Huntso]

How about the latest stabilised versions of the Sigma and Tamron 70-300mm lenses

From your list think I would opt for the 120-400, extra reach is always handy and latest review I saw reckoned at f/8 it was the equal of the Canon 100-400 at 400mm (their opinion, not mine before anyone jumps on me)

Must say for walking about I use a 70-200 f/4 is, light/versatile and at a push could use a 1.4x tc for extra length, never have though

 

[Jaff]

Funny that Jaff was the 1st to respond to that:-O
But I would concur with him.......I have the 100-400 together with 3002.8 which I use 99% of the time but can't bring myself to sell the 100-400 as it is such a good & versatil lense.

Please, do enlighten? :h?:

 

[Cartman]

I would look for a second hand 100-400, I got one 2 years ago for £470 and I wouldn't part with it. It made a decent photographer out of a beginner :t:

 

[mike from ebbw]

I would look for a second hand 100-400, I got one 2 years ago for £470 and I wouldn't part with it. It made a decent photographer out of a beginner :t:

Thats a fab price for a cracking bit of kit and only a tenner more than I paid for my S/H Siggy EX 50-500mm.

 

[RyanEustace]

I would look for a second hand 100-400, I got one 2 years ago for £470 and I wouldn't part with it. It made a decent photographer out of a beginner

That is an amazing price to pay for such a lens

I highly doubt you'll find one for that price, nearer to £800-£900 I'd say

Personally if I was you I'd stick to your budget and get the sigma 120-400mm OS, then later on if you find yourself wanting to upgrade again its always an option. Len's like the sigma 120-400mm OS don't loose their value really as there a stepping stone from either a cheap nasty telephoto lens or a short focal length lens. As such there's always people after them, not prepared to jump in head first and fork out close to a grand on there first telephoto lens.

The canon 400mm f5.6 L is also a good bet, usually you can find them cheaper than the 100-400mm IS L at around £650'ish, a solid lens with quick auto-focus, theres alot of debate about wether the 100-400mm IS l or the canon 400mm f5.6 is the lens to go for. And then of course theres the 300mm f4 IS L, but im not gunna go into that lot (see link)

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=185938&highlight=canon+100-400mm+400mm

It's all personal prefrence, so don't necessarily let other peoples experiences with lens sway your decision, it comes down to what you think will suit you best.

Ryan

 

[Cartman]

Thats a fab price for a cracking bit of kit and only a tenner more than I paid for my S/H Siggy EX 50-500mm.

yeah I bought it off a guy off here when prices were much lower, at the time they were only about £950 new. I love it so much that if it was damaged I would take the hit and buy a new one without hesitation.