Budget Canon longer lens

M

Mossberg

Suspended / Banned
Messages
200
Name
M
Edit My Images
Yes
I recently purchased the Canon R6ii and love it. I would like to compliment it with a longer lens and I would like opinions on what would be a good choice.

I currently have a prime 50 and 85mm and also a 24-70 F2.8 (my favourite).

My thoughts are something like one of the following
35-350 F3.5
70-300 F4 5
100-400 F4.5
70-200 F4 (I really want longer than this but thought I would include it anyway).

This is going to be on a budget, so it will be an older EF lens, so please bear that in mind.

I am fortunate enough to live in an area with lots of sheep, cattle and birds, so that is likely to be some of what I will use as subjects.

Thanks for your help and opinions.

Mick
 
The 70-200 f4 is a lovely thing. Lightweight, effective IS and good on a budget. I can get good results with my 1.4x EF extender too, in good light.

I also have the EF 100-400 mkii, again excellent IS and IQ but weighs a fair bit so bare that in mind if going walkabout.

Prior to that I had a Sigma Contemprary
 
Hmm, screen froze half way through that post and won't let me edit for some reason.

The Sigma Contemporary 150-600 has great reach but not as quick to focus accurately. Again, being a slower lens needs good light. But the IQ was impressive.

May be worth exploring that option to start with depending on budget?
 
My choice would be between the 70-300 (with no overlap or gap with the 24-70) or the 100-400 (and accept the gap as collateral damage!) Of the 2, I'd probably end up with the longer option but I'd be comparing the output at the same framing between a slightly cropped 70-300 shot and the full stretch 100-400.
 
The Canon 70-300 doesnt have a great reputation, from what I've seen the 70-250mm is better optically. That said the Tamron 70-300mm is a good lens.
 
Another vote for the EF 70-200 f/4 from me.
 
You mentioned birds. I'd suggest you'll need a starting point of 400mm for that.

FTH
 
Last edited:
The Canon 70-200 F4 L will accept a x1.4 Teleconverter to become a 280mm f5.6. They can be bought used for £ 250 upwards and its very good value for money. relatively light, relatively compact, although I think a mounting foot was extra. Its a lens that almost all Canon EOS photographers could quite easily argue an ownership case for, including those who own the bigger and heavier f2.8 versions.

If you fancy a prime, the 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6 could be worth considering.
 
For wildlife I’d say the 100-400 is the minimum, but consider the Sigma 150-600.
But if you just want a decent telephoto zoom, the 70-200 2.8 is the benchmark, and consider an older non IS model, a bit cheaper, and you have IBIS, so it becomes handholdable.
Or the f4 version if you’re weight conscious.
 
andrewc said:
If you fancy a prime, the 300mm f4 or 400mm f5.6 could be worth considering.
Click to expand...
good options. also 200 2.8

andrewc said:
The Canon 70-200 F4 L will accept a x1.4 Teleconverter to become a 280mm f5.6. They can be bought used for £ 250 upwards and its very good value for money. relatively light, relatively compact, although I think a mounting foot was extra. Its a lens that almost all Canon EOS photographers could quite easily argue an ownership case for, including those who own the bigger and heavier f2.8 versions.
Click to expand...
this is absolutely fine on R6 but I certainly would not bother with TC, nor it is usually needed. The hit on IQ is very severe in so many ways, you may as well just crop and topaz if absolutely necessary.

Not a choice of lens for high res cameras, but again fine for R6

100-400 ii seems well regarded. But generally the broader the zoom range the worse it will be.
 
You'll want at least 400mm if you're considering birds. For me, these are the options going up in price

Canon 400mm f5.6 - around £500 - old but high quality. No IS if I remember correctly

Sigma 150-600C - around £750. Not used one myself but have seen plenty of good work with this lens

Canon 100-400ii. - around £1000. You can go for the older mk1 lens but you need to try that out as there is a large IQ variation with that lens. Some are excellent, some are poor. I've had 2 of these previously and they are excellent lenses

Mike
 
pooley said:
Canon 100-400ii. - around £1000. You can go for the older mk1 lens but you need to try that out as there is a large IQ variation with that lens. Some are excellent, some are poor. I've had 2 of these previously and they are excellent lenses

Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads-up on this Mike. I did fancy one of these but would likely buy it over the Internet. What would I need to look out for that shows ifvits a good or bad one?
 
Mossberg said:
Thanks for the heads-up on this Mike. I did fancy one of these but would likely buy it over the Internet. What would I need to look out for that shows ifvits a good or bad one?
Click to expand...
You won't know until you test it. They all look the same from the outside.
 
To know if a lens is 'good' or 'bad' you have to trust the sellers description. I have bought my lenses new and second hand from photographic sellers on-line and have been super happy with the items I received (300mm 2.8, TSE 90mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and so on).
 
Mossberg said:
Thanks for the heads-up on this Mike. I did fancy one of these but would likely buy it over the Internet. What would I need to look out for that shows ifvits a good or bad one?
Click to expand...
The mk2 is generally an excellent lens regardless of where you get it from, it’s the mk1 I’d want to test in person

Have a look on camerapricebuster.co.uk and get it used from a reputable dealer where you can return it if you’re unhappy
 
pooley said:
Canon 400mm f5.6 - around £500 - old but high quality. No IS if I remember correctly
Click to expand...
With ibis lack of is is irrelevant. I use one myself


pooley said:
Canon 100-400ii. - around £1000. You can go for the older mk1 lens but you need to try that out as there is a large IQ variation with that lens. Some are excellent, some are poor. I've had 2 of these previously and they are excellent lenses
Click to expand...
MK1 is best avoided at all cost. It was s*** even on 16mp 1ds ii
 
I ACTUALLY use a RF 24-240. Its shortcomings are all totally fixable electronically and its designed that way. Without these alSO fixes its mediocre. I have found over the years that if 240 is not long enough then I can’t get by with 400 or 500 or 600, and need 800 -1120. And so I also have an RF 800, with a 1.4 teleconverter.

WITH the use of Topaz on my FF camera, I have given up using flash and diffusers for outside macro and just use the 24-240 with a could of extension tubes, and shoot in cloudy days or cloudy places.
 
The Canon 100-400 L Mark one - is pretty good. I have that and use it on my R8. Having said that, I'll be moving it on soon as I recently bough the RF 100-500 - just for the extra reach. I also have the RF 800 which I very much enjoy. However I got the 100-500 as I'll end up with a converter in the end, so I can get around about 800 on it.. for similar quality.

Long story short though, the EF 100-400 I rate very much. I've got many photos with it that I've been delighted with.
 
Phil V said:
For wildlife I’d say the 100-400 is the minimum, but consider the Sigma 150-600.
But if you just want a decent telephoto zoom, the 70-200 2.8 is the benchmark, and consider an older non IS model, a bit cheaper, and you have IBIS, so it becomes handholdable.
Or the f4 version if you’re weight conscious.
Click to expand...
Is the Sigma a good choice for the R6ii?
 
Agree about the 70-200 F4 it’s an excellent lens I have had mine for many years but as said it is too short for birds and most wildlife
I would try out any lens that isn’t Canon first if you can before buying to check that it auto focuses properly on your Canon mirrorless
Even my very old Sigma lenses do work properly on my R5 I have heard of people having issues though
 
LCPete said:
Agree about the 70-200 F4 it’s an excellent lens I have had mine for many years but as said it is too short for birds and most wildlife
I would try out any lens that isn’t Canon first if you can before buying to check that it auto focuses properly on your Canon mirrorless
Even my very old Sigma lenses do work properly on my R5 I have heard of people having issues though
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate on the issues please Pete? I won't know what to look for otherwise - very newton this.
 
Mossberg said:
Could you elaborate on the issues please Pete? I won't know what to look for otherwise - very newton this.
Click to expand...
I don’t know any more than that sorry if I remember correctly someone on here had issues with the Sigma 150-600 and thought that I had better mention it
If possible I would check with the seller if you are able to return the lens if it doesn’t work with your camera
 
Mossberg said:
Is the Sigma a good choice for the R6ii?
Click to expand...
Some people report pulsing issues with the sigma 150-600 ,duade patten on YouTube done a video about this, the 100-400 mk1 is getting on now , they did vary in in iq I had a really sharp copy
the 400 f5.6 is a very sharp lens and very light and takes a tc very well I used a sigma 1.4 with it and had good results
 
Last edited:
It sounds like the 100-400 Mkii is what I want, but at around 1k+, quite a bit more than i wanted (can afford) to spend.
 
Mossberg said:
Is the Sigma a good choice for the R6ii?
Click to expand...
There have been some reported issues with the Sigma 150-600 hunting, but there are also thousands of happy users.

I don’t get to use mine a lot (R6), but I’ve never noticed it to be any less reliable focussing than any of my other lenses.

A google search will inform you of the issues.
 
Phil V said:
There have been some reported issues with the Sigma 150-600 hunting, but there are also thousands of happy users.

I don’t get to use mine a lot (R6), but I’ve never noticed it to be any less reliable focussing than any of my other lenses.

A google search will inform you of the issues.
Click to expand...

That's my thoughts back in the air again!
 
Mossberg said:
It sounds like the 100-400 Mkii is what I want, but at around 1k+, quite a bit more than i wanted (can afford) to spend.
Click to expand...
#1 this seems to hold value reasonably well so it is not a wasted purchase if you go second hand
#2 you can just pick up a prime. 400mm or 300mm whichever ones fits the style better. I'd say 300 is better FL for dogs.
#3 there is probably some questionable and fast depreciating photography (or otherwise) gear in your storage that could make way for quality kit

all those xx-600 zooms I would treat them as 400 or 500mm max. They tend to get softer at the long end. New mirrorless designs improve things but you'd have to change a mount to access any of them. It is getting boring not being able to get any new Sigma (or for that matter Sony, Viltrox, etc) glass and only the mediocre overpriced Canon gear.
 
+1 for the 300 F4L IS here. I'd just check the max burst rate on mirrorless as i am sure mine slowed down a lot with the R5
 
Last edited:
A_S said:
+1 for the 300 F4L IS here. I'd just check the max burst rate on mirrorless as i am sure mine slowed down a lot with the R5
Click to expand...
Only in legacy shutter mode. Electronic will carry on at full speed, and additionally it will have easier time wide open which you should do anyway with long telephotos. So essentially won't be an issue with last gen bodies going forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top