which long tele ?

[sami_palta1]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Want to purchase a long tele like <strong>70-300</strong> or <strong>100-400</strong> mm for 5D MkII. <br>

Will use it for landscape, outdoors, sports and kids.<br>

I want my lens to be sharp, not very heavy and easy to carry.<br>

Budget should be around 1500 usd +/- %20.<br>

What would you recommend ?<br>

Thanks</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>What will you be shooting? That's a key question. For a full-frame sensor I'd go for all the reach you can get, which puts the 100-400mm in the lead. The 400mm end gets you into a lens that begins to be effective for birds. The 100-400mm is a great general wildlife and sports lens.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>70-300 is lighter and sharper.</p>

[glennpollockphotography]

<p>Go with Canon's 70-300mmL IS USM. You won't be disappointed!</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I assume you're talkng about the 70-300mm "L" version. I haven't used it, but would imagine both lenses are suffiecient. The 100-400mm is a great lens, although I don't know that I'd call it 'lightweight,' but then again I don't know how light the 70-300mm is either. I personally would always rather have the longest lens possible, especially with a full frame camera. Don't forget other options as well. I know you said light and easy to carry, so maybe a two lens solution isn't what you want, but a combination of a 70-200mm and either 300 f/4L IS or 400mm f/5.6L may work too. Also, don't forget the 1.4x tele-converter. If you want to shoot birds, you'll want a longer lens 99% of the time; even if you had the 800mm, you'd want longer, so I'd go as long as possible. I use the 400mm f/5.6L and a 1.4x (when the light permits, on a 1D for f/8 AF) and love the combination. No, it doesn't have IS, but it's the best, cheapest, 400mm lens you can get. Once you go longer you're talking about selling a car to fund the lens.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>For sports, you may want to consider picking up a used crop body such as a 50D to mate with the 70-300. It would give you a better AF system (more cross points) and more effective reach.</p>

<p>Many people, myself included, use a dual format system.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>If 70-300mm is enough for you take a look at the Tamron VC version. Slightly less expensive than the Canon equivalent and gets better reviews of the optics. I'm thinking of adding one to my lenses. Good luck!</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>Every fall/winter Lensrentals sells used lenses.... they have a spectacular selection. I've rented and bought used lenses... they are great.<br /> Pick your poison.<br /> <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/buy">http://www.lensrentals.com/buy</a><br /> Richard<br>

OBTW... for what you describe... I'd go with a 70-200 2.8 IS...<br>

(I own a 100-400L and a 300 2.8 on the long end)</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>Re: the Tamron 70-300, it is a *lot* less expensive than the Canon 70-300 L - like $1,000 cheaper. It's also 10 ounces lighter. Optically it isn't as good as the L, but it's still a pretty good performer. And it would leave enough in the budget to pick up a 50D or 60D.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>I second the Tamron. Check the reviews at FredMiranda.com and slrgear.com - and you can buy used at KEH.com, though you might get a dud and be frustrated. Maybe call them, and see what they have to say about returning or exchanging a lens, if you're unhappy.</p>

[catchlight]

<p>I had the Canon 100-400mm, and used it for outdoor sports and wildlife. I soon realized, though, that I was using the 400mm focal length nearly all the time, so I replaced it with the cheaper, lighter, sharper Canon 400mm/f5.6. Your use may be different, but it's probably worth checking in case the prime and its advantages would work better for you. Artie Morris (Birds as Art) says the Canon 400/5.6 is the best lens you can get for shooting birds in flight handheld.</p>