Canon Zoom lenses.... Advise needed.

[mash]

<p>Hi, i am looking to buy a new canon zoom lens.... and i need advise on the best option within my budget.<br>

I currently have an entry level sigma 70-300mm lens.... and i am getting "ok" results, accept that the images aren't sharp enough.</p>

<p><strong>I have considered purchasing one of the following two lenses:</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>1) Canon EF 70-200mm f4.0 L USM</strong><br>

<strong>2) Canon EF 70-300mm f4.0-5.6 IS USM</strong></p>

<p>Momentarily i'd prefer the 70-200mm L USM, but the thing that's put me off is that it doesn't have image stabilisation.... whereas the other lens has image stabilisation as well as a further zoom range.<br>

If i'm going to purchase the 70-200mm i would also look at getting a range extender, but i don't know if it would be sufficient without the image stabilisation and without the use of a tripod.<br>

If i could please get some advice on which lens would be better, or even if another lens could be suggested (for wildlife photography) within a price range of about R 7,000 to R 8,000.00 (estimated 900.00 USD)<br>

Thank You!<br>

*Chantelle Melzer</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>I sometimes shoot with a new Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM + a used Canon Extender EF 1.4x II. The image quality is near excellent. A used mint combination would be outside of your price range by at least a couple of hundred dollars. The IS and autofocus for said lens will work with the Extender and will save you in most situations. As you may know, the f/4 becomes f/5.6 with the Extender. Also, f/5.6 will give you slower autofocus.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>The EF 70-300 IS is a pretty good lens. It has exactly the same range as the lens you use now. It is definitely an upgrade to your Sigma.</p>

<p>However, I think the 70-200/4 (with or without IS) is two steps up. I've used it (with IS) for quite a while on a 400D and was very happy with it. (Now it's used with a 50D and I'm still very happy with it.)<br>

You will lose the last 100mm. That might be a problem. Two things: 1. your 400D has enough pixels to crop so you could probably get the results you want just by cropping. 2. You could always buy the zoom now and the extender later that way spreading your investment.</p>

<p>Note: You could could limit yourself to 200mm with your current lens just to see if you would miss the extra length.<br>

Note2: If you want longer there are some nice (better than your current lens but not the absolute best) Sigma zooms that are longer and have OS (Sigma's IS). (80-400 or 150-500) These are pretty big lenses though.</p>

<p>Last note on IS: I shoot mainly handheld so I wouldn't want to mis it. If the choice is 70-300 with IS or 70-200 without IS my vote would be the 70-300/IS. If you mainly shoot on a tripod this is less of an consideration.</p>

<p>Ultimately my vote would be the 70-200/4 IS but either other choice would be a distinct improvement upon your current 70-300 Sigma.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>In case you didn't know, here is a list of compatible Canon lenses (mostly L lenses) that can mate with the Canon Extender EF 1.4x II:</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Extender_EF.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Back when a very good friend of mine was buying a Canon system I gave him the advice to take the 70-300 IS over the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). I actually thought about it even more carefully than if I was buying for myself... it's not the easiest decision, I agree.</p>

<p>The truth of the matter is that in my limited experience, for that price range (~575) the extra 100mm and <strong>especially IS</strong> make a big difference in <em>usability </em>and therefore results when shooting wildlife. People get obsessed with sharpness, but zooming to 300mm with the non-L is going to give you a better image than cropping the 70-200. And if you're not using a tripod, IS becomes a lifesaver at longer focal lengths.</p>

<p>However, the 70-200 plus extender is a very good contender for IQ, comparing quite favorably to the 70-300 at 280mm. The unfortunate thing about the 70-300mm is that 300mm is possibly its weakest setting. So L lens + extender is a good upgrade path.</p>

<p>However, if you can bear it, the 70-200 f/4L <em>with</em> IS is a very, very nice lens to own—both practical and excellent. This plus an extender is a killer combo for all sorts of scenarios. I think the real question therefore becomes 70-300 IS or 70-200 f/4L IS—no easy decision given the wide price difference.</p>

<p>Another question—what do you mean by "wildlife?" The mantra with birds, for example, is "go longer." Even a 300mm can feel short in bird photography.</p>

[mash]

<p>I have also been considering getting the 70-200 f/4L with IS (But obviously the price difference is intense)</p>

<p>In other words, would it be better for me so save the extra money needed for the 70-200 f/4 L with IS and purchase an extender at a later stage? or rather to maybe consider waiting and saving even longer to purchase the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM which works out to about the same price as the 70-200 f/4 IS + 2.0x extender?<br>

The other option i have considered is to maybe buy the 70-300 with IS and then sell the lens again once i have gathered enough money to afford the 70-200 f/4 IS, but i'm a bit weary of this idea as i'm uncertain as to how much the lens would drop in value.</p>

<p>I'm very enthusiastic about all wildlife photography in general (more animals than birds) but i do enjoy taking photos of birds aswell.</p>

<p>I am not a professional photographer, and i'm wondering if maybe the EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM might be too big of a step for me, but at the same time.... it might be worth it in the long run... as i am wanting to take photography further than just a hobbie?</p>

[peter_j2]

<p><strong>Chantelle Melzer</strong> : I don't own the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM but have used it. It's heavy and is a push-pull design. With this design also comes with a bearing problem explained in detail here:</p>

<p>http://www.testfreaks.com/lenses/canon-ef-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6l-is-usm/reviews/.</p>

<p>But, it does reach out to 300mm which is what you want for your type of photography.</p>

<p>Don't even bother buying and selling a 70-300 with IS and losing money at the end. You want to take a hobby further? Then start saving for the next 2-3 months and get a mint used condition 70-200/4L IS USM. I went from the non-IS version to the IS version and will never look back. A used Extender 1.4x II are sold in abundance on eBay for around $220 US.</p>

<p>Also, Canon will be releasing a version II 70-200/2.8L IS soon. So, expect to see a few more used 70-200/4 IS versions on eBay cheap. And, don't forget about the 67mm filter size.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Lenses retain value better than most consumer electronics, and for a very long time (totally not the case with bodies). With a less-expensive lens like the 70-300, you'll lose a larger <em>percentage</em> but a low <em>absolute</em> amount; on Amazon right now I see it going for $550 new, $450 used.</p>

<p>I've never used the 100-400 (well, apart from brief handling), so I can only speak from reviews. It's twice as heavy and much bigger than the 70-200 f/4 series—it really stands out and is more likely to get "left behind" unless you make a point of taking it with you into the field. Not really a vacation lens! It has a now-uncommon push-pull design with tension ring that some people really like and many dislike. The IS is a little older and therefore slightly less effective (but still great). But the image quality is good (not as good as the 70-200, but still nice), and for wildlife a 100-400 range is <em>extremely</em> useful. Of course it's the most expensive option in this thread so far.</p>

<p>To be honest, if wildlife photography is really your primary interest in a telephoto zoom, the 100-400 <em>might</em> be the best choice in my very humble opinion. But again, you have to balance it against other potential uses and needs, not the least of which is budget. In my own situation a 100-400 is a lot lower on my list than a good 70-200... for what it's worth.</p>

<p>My favorite piece of advice for lens questions is "rent or borrow!" If you're patient, wait for a special occasion or event to give you an excuse to rent one or more of these lenses that you're unsure on. For instance, a 70-200 f/4L IS lens costs about $60 to rent for the week. You can try it with IS on and off, see if you really need the IS; you can test if 200 is truly long enough for your style, or if you miss that 300; you can see the difference in IQ between what you get now and what you get with a great lens, to check if your technique is what's really needing improvement... lots of benefits to "trying before buying."</p>

[matthijs]

<p>One note: if you use a Canon x2 extender on an F4 (or slower / higher F-number) lens you'll lose auto focus. To me that would be a no-go area.</p>

<p>Reviews on the Canon <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">100-400</a> L (I don't have it so I can't share personal experience) are pretty good. Reviews on the Sigma's are not that good but not bad either.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>With the choice between 70-300 and the 70-200 (non-IS) I would go with the 70-300 - at 200 it is not far behind the 70-200, it has IS and the option of 300mm if you need it.<br>

If you can afford the 70-200 f4 IS I would stretch to that. </p>

<p>If you take the view that with wildlife anything below 200mm will not be used much you have two other options: the 400mm f5.6 prime lens, regarded by many as one of the hidden gems of Canon range. If you think you will always (or nearly always) be shooting at the long end then this seems a good option and you can add the 1.4x tc. Or the 300mm f4L whihc si very highly praised plus 1.4x extender.<br>

There are other threads on the choices you mentioned and these alternatives keep cropping up.<br>

Many people don't rate the 2x teleconverter conmpared to the 1.4x so the latter seems the best solution.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Well, not withstanding those who have just handled the 100-400 I own one. I also own a 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 and 2x extenders. My sister owns a 70-200 f4L that I have used. I have also owned and sold a couple of 70-300 IS lenses. I have had the 70-200 2.8 since 1997. It is still in regular use shooting swimming meets and actually with my studio lights for some portraits. I have used it with the 2X extender to shoot wildlife and won a few show awards with those pictures. The actual widest aperture with the 2X is 5.6. The 100-400 does 400mm focal length at 5.6 also. It is better than the 70-200 2x combo. I have no problem with the push-pull, and contrary to speculation, does not seem to pick up dust in the four years I have had it. It makes great sports pictures if you have the light. I use the 70-200 indoors where I really need close to 2.8 apertures to get the shutter speeds I need. IMO, based upon the longevity and hard use my 70-200 has survived and the still very sharp pictures it makes, it is, as someone above said, twice the lens my 70-300s were. The 70-200 f4 is the same build, but light and more manageable. On a 1.6 crop body with a 1.4 extender it gives you the equivilent of 448 mm. On a full frame it give 280 mm if my math is correct. IMO the real buy is the 70-200 f4 in terms of IQ, ruggedness and durability along with reasonable weight. I have produced some exceptional blowups with the 100-400 and use it frequently but I use the 70-200 more. I did not particulalrly like the 70-300 IS and when I started shooting sports for a paper and I went to the 70-200. Much better for night football. </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>70-200mm hands down. I find that most shots at that focal range are of action/wildlife and require a fast AF. The AF of the 70-300mm is slow and will cause a lot of missed shots. I'd rather have to crop than to not get the shot at all. Also, with action, a fast shutter is the only thing to freeze action, so if you are using a fast enough shutter for this, the IS won't be necessary. Yes, the IS is a nice luxury, but definitely not mandatory. Not to mention the superior optics, build quality, durability, and constant aperture of the 70-200mm.</p>

[mash]

<p>Thanks for all the responses and suggestions, it really helped.... I guess i'm going to end up buying 70-200 f/4 L <strong><em>with IS..... </em></strong>just need to save a bit first. THANK YOU!</p>