Canon Lens recommendations

Jimwah

Jimwah

Suspended / Banned
Messages
475
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I'm in a position to upgrade my camera gear, and have decided I want to take a step forward with my photographic abilities & achievements this year. I currently use a Lumix G1 with an array of lenses, and it's served me very well for last few years, but I'd like to move into Canon DSLR territory.

Anyway, in terms of the body, I think I've settled on a 50D, looks like the best of all worlds for me - good screen, decent focusing, tough body, right price... this would leave me with somewhere between £500 to £800 ish to spend on some accompanying lenses.

I shoot all sorts of stuff, but enjoy getting pictures of the local birds of prey & wildlife, including my crazy dog :bonk: I also shoot occasional close ups of insects/flowers and the odd landscape shot too.

So I'm thinking of buying a really nice lens for wildlife/dog/birds, and then a cheaper landscape lens for more occasional use. Does anyone have any recommendations?

I notice the Canon 70-200 L USM is really well reviewed, but would this feel short for bird shots? I realise that the 100-300mm Lumix lens might have spoilt me a bit in this respect! For general pottering about I have an old EF 28-135mm IS USM so that'll probably do, to fill the gap between ultra wide & tele.

Thanks in advance!

Jim
 
Probably a 100-400L ??? That would set you back at least £700 though, so you would have to stick to your 28-135 for a while (its not a bad lens!)
 
Personally I think you might struggle with a 28-135mm as being your wides lens, I find my Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 a bit long at times. If you want a long telephoto the 100-400L has a good reputation however I would spend the remainder on a good standard zoom in the range of 17-55mm. Both the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 non-VC and the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC Macro should fit the bill!
 
DaveKing said:
Personally I think you might struggle with a 28-135mm as being your wides lens, I find my Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 a bit long at times. If you want a long telephoto the 100-400L has a good reputation however I would spend the remainder on a good standard zoom in the range of 17-55mm. Both the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 non-VC and the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC Macro should fit the bill!
Click to expand...

My point was that he won't have any money to spend after buying a 100-400L...

A 17-50 or 17-55 for £100? I wish....:p
 
A 70-200 f4 non IS and a 1.4x converter would be well within your budget, especially if you can get a good second hand one. I got one a couple of months ago for £360 and it's sharp as a tack. Add the 1.4x and you get a 280 FL, which isn't far from the 300 you're used too, and you still retain AF. A 1.4x Kenko DGX converter was just over £100 recently when I got one so for both you'd be below your bottom budget, which would allow you to get some other goodies such as flash, bag or other lens. Or you could just go for a Sigma 150-500 OS for around £650 and as you have a 28-135 you'd have good coverage for most of the range.
 
Last edited:
modchild said:
A 70-200 f4 non IS and a 1.4x converter would be well within your budget, especially if you can get a good second hand one. I got one a couple of months ago for £360 and it's sharp as a tack. Add the 1.4x and you get a 280 FL, which isn't far from the 300 you're used too, and you still retain AF. A 1.4x Kenko DGX converter was just over £100 recently when I got one so for both you'd be below your bottom budget, which would allow you to get some other goodies such as flash, bag or other lens.
Click to expand...

I just had a quick look but couldn't find the relevant info - 300mm on a Lumix G1 is equivalent to what on 35mm???

I used to use a 1.4 with my 70-200, it won't feel like a lot of increase in focal length for £100 - and bear in mind that with a Kenko converter the IQ will be worse than using a Canon 1.4 II ... If you really want to shoot wildlife and all that then you will be much happier with a 100-400 I reckon.
 
The 300mm will be FF equivalent.. and ofc the 70-200 on a crop body like the 50d will actually be 320mm.
 
DoctorBob said:
The 300mm will be FF equivalent.. and ofc the 70-200 on a crop body like the 50d will actually be 320mm.
Click to expand...

It's equivalent to 200-600 on a FF. The 100-300 spec is actual focal length.
 
I'd look for a used 100-400. Excellent lens for wildlife.
 
Or if you don't want to spend as much, the sigma 120-400 or 150-500 as an alternative.
 
Don't worry I'm not expecting to get to 600mm on a Canon on my budget, just gather up some good suggestions on tele lenses that might suit my general needs. I'm off to look up some pricing - the 70-200 L with a 1.4xTC is something to consider, but then I expect you might be in the price range of the 100-400 L?

Still no idea where to go with the ultrawide lens, may be something to consider further down the line, I'll still be keeping a G1 with a wide lens or two for now.
 
70-200 F4L non-IS would be about £350 used, and a Canon 1.4 II is about £200 - for £550 you could get a Sigma 150-500 I think, and the 120-400 is even cheaper but bear in mind that both those Sigma's performance is lesser than that of the Canon 100-400L as far as I know.
 
travellingcello said:
This will show you potentially how much difference there is between the Sigma 150-500 and the Canon 100-400L wide open

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=683&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=113&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0
Click to expand...

The difference isn't anything like that obvious in real use though, I looked at lots of reviews and comparisons before buying one and the general conclusion (which my personal experience from trying them out in a shot and borrowing them from people tallies with) is that the 100-400 is visibly sharper (more contrasty) at the same apertures, but the sigma's can produce easily comparable images when stopped down a little more. And the sigma's still are very decent in terms of image quality, especially when you consider the price they go for and the fact they also have good build quality, speedy enough AF (comparable to the 100-400) and good OS.

I ended up with a 100-400 because I do prefer it to the sigmas and spotted a very very good price on amazon temporarily and I won a big photography competition so had some prize money to drop on a lens, but without that I would have happily gone for the sigma :) But as it is I'm very pleased to have the 100-400L

These comparisons are what I've found to be the most representative

http://www.michaelfurtman.com/sigma150_500.htm
(bare in mind that that review was posted when the 150-500 was newly released and was more expensive than it is now)

http://juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=50


If budget is restrictive I certainly wouldn't hesitate to go for a sigma :). Worth mentioning that any of these options are going to be quite noticeably heavier and larger than the panasonic 100-300 though, but on APS-C that's going to be unavoidable to get the same effective focal length as on the panasonic.
 
Last edited:
I've had the 28-125IS and for me it was a great walk about lens.

The 70-200 is a belter of a lens

For the ultra wide angle, the Sigma 10-20 is well worth a look at (not the constant F)
 
squishy said:
The difference isn't anything like that obvious in real use though, I looked at lots of reviews and comparisons before buying one and the general conclusion (which my personal experience from trying them out in a shot and borrowing them from people tallies with) is that the 100-400 is visibly sharper (more contrasty) at the same apertures, but the sigma's can produce easily comparable images when stopped down a little more. And the sigma's still are very decent in terms of image quality, especially when you consider the price they go for and the fact they also have good build quality, speedy enough AF (comparable to the 100-400) and good OS.

I ended up with a 100-400 because I do prefer it to the sigmas and spotted a very very good price on amazon temporarily and I won a big photography competition so had some prize money to drop on a lens, but without that I would have happily gone for the sigma :) But as it is I'm very pleased to have the 100-400L

These comparisons are what I've found to be the most representative

http://www.michaelfurtman.com/sigma150_500.htm
(bare in mind that that review was posted when the 150-500 was newly released and was more expensive than it is now)

http://juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=50


If budget is restrictive I certainly wouldn't hesitate to go for a sigma :). Worth mentioning that any of these options are going to be quite noticeably heavier and larger than the panasonic 100-300 though, but on APS-C that's going to be unavoidable to get the same effective focal length as on the panasonic.
Click to expand...

Thats why I was careful to say 'potential difference' - I totally agree that in real world we don't go around photographing test charts (at least not all of us :eek:) but like you also say, you have to stop down with the Sigma... which is the catch , and some may find it a big problem having to stop down from 6.3.... at least in the climate we live in!
 
Thanks for the suggestions guys, 100-400L does appear to fit the bill, but I have reservations about blowing the budget on it & I don't really like the push/pull design much.

At the moment, I'm somewhere between a Sigma 120-400, and the 70-200 f4L - I just really like the look of the 70-200, iQ and internal focusing and relatively fast, not sure how it's performance degrades when using a 1.4x TC, but I'm tempted to get the lens & see how I get along with it, with a view to getting the TC if I find it too short.

Sigma 10-20 looks perfect for ultrawide shots, so I'm pretty happy with that as the choice for landscapes & for a bit of fun :)
 
Last edited:
I'll wander in with some of my thoughts.

On the long lens front I've tried a few - feel free to take a look at my lens archive on flickr, sadly I've not owned a Sigma 120-400 so cannot comment.

The 70-200 f4L is crisp and not bad, but it never seemed to be at the right range for me, either not close enough or too far, I'd probably suggest the Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 SP Di VC USD over that lens as it give good quality, great VC (Vibration compensation, which is Tamrons IS) and more range for a slight trade off in IQ (but at nearly £500 cheaper its worth it).

The 100-400 is a very good lens and the push pull once you get used to it is much quicker than the normal twist zoom, IQ excellent, IS is around two stops which is okay - a very strong lens, I only upgraded from that to get the 400mm prime (which I have subsequently sold to get the Sigma 50-500 OS because I missed flexibility).

I would suggest the 50-500 OS but its out of your budget and I've only ever seen one come up for sale second hand once (and the guy that bought it wouldn't sell it to me - I know cheeky but I did ask!).

Oh, and don't be put of the Sigma 150-500 because of that the-digital-picture.com review posted earlier, I think they must have had a special on Vaseline and didn't know where to store it so stuck it on the biggest lens to hand!! Its much better than that review suggests and while not quite as good on IQ as the 100-400 its pretty close and the OS (sigma's IS) is better.

Now the 10-20 was very good but I really didn't get on with that range at all and I would seriously suggest lens correction software such as lightroom for that lens.
 
Last edited:
My couple of pence worth..........

It's a budget blowing suggestion but here goes :lol:

Are you sure you want an ultrawide? Whilst they can give some cracking landscapes and effects, I think the novalty would wear off quite quickly.

I find my Canon 15-85 is wide enough for landscapes and long enough if I'm out and about and don't feel like walking too far to get a shot :lol:

I also have a Canon 100-400 which I think's a fantastic lens when you need a bit of extra reach (I mainly use it for Rugby/Cricket matches but also managed to get some half decent bird in flight shots too).

Admittedly, even getting both of these pre-owned you could be looking at £1200-£1300 BUT you'd have most (if not all) of your bases covered and probably wouldn't need any other lenses (yeah.... quite a bold statement I know) unless you found a niché where you might need a specific length prime.
 
Ive owned most of these lens you mention and if it were between the siggy 120-400 & canon 70-200 f4 i would go canon all day long, the siggy 150-500 is a great lens for the money and i found it great for wildlife and aviation, but the 100-400 i had was awesome. But i would still advise what i mentioned on my previous post.

Andy
 
Well I finally got a S/H 50D body ordered from Amazon this morning, after a frustrating evening on eBay last night (lost out on a 50D and a local 100-400 L) - so I'm halfway there.
 
Jimwah said:
Well I finally got a S/H 50D body ordered from Amazon this morning, after a frustrating evening on eBay last night (lost out on a 50D and a local 100-400 L) - so I'm halfway there.
Click to expand...

Hi Jimwah, Just to say that I can identify with your problem. I had a Panasonic DMC Fz20 before buying a Canon 550d. Whilst the Lumix only had 5ml pix the Leica lens more than made up for it. I have yet to better it with the 550!! on normal shooting.
Sometimes I feel I wasted my money !!

Regards
Brian
 
Hi Jimwah, Further to my above post #5, I've just received the Sigma 150-500 and it is one hell of a lens. I've only had time to play about for a few minutes with it so far but I was getting very sharp photos of text (the back of a pringles tube) indoors, handheld with no flash from about 15 feet away in very poor light. On a crop it equates to 800mm FL and I got it at Panamoz.com. Ordered it on 2nd Jan at 9.30pm and received it today at around 1.30pm and it cost £617.99 inc. delivery.
 
modchild said:
Hi Jimwah, Further to my above post #5, I've just received the Sigma 150-500 and it is one hell of a lens. I've only had time to play about for a few minutes with it so far but I was getting very sharp photos of text (the back of a pringles tube) indoors, handheld with no flash from about 15 feet away in very poor light. On a crop it equates to 800mm FL and I got it at Panamoz.com. Ordered it on 2nd Jan at 9.30pm and received it today at around 1.30pm and it cost £617.99 inc. delivery.
Click to expand...
Stuart,

I'd be very interested in a detailed review of your lens as I am looking to acquire something similar. The prices of the Canon lenses up to 500mm make my hair stand on end and I can't afford a divorce!
 
Last edited:
theres a mint condition 7D Ive just put up for sale in the classifieds... from your budget youd be able to afford it with the 18-135 IS and have enough left over to grab a longer lens...;)
 
Well the 50D sale from Amazon was cancelled, they were out of stock, so I am looking for a Canon body again now :|

Will take a look at the 7D, but it might be a bit of stretch for me to be honest, I'm not too sure what it offers over the 50D for my needs. Anyway, I'm hopefully going to be the proud owner of a 100-400L shortly, so that's set me back a fair chunk of the budget! :naughty:
 
100-400 is a very sound lens, but MA isn't a whole lot of use on a zoom, as I found to my frustration as it only has one setting per lens, so if its a +7 at the long end and a +1 at the short then what do you do?

Luckily with the 1DX they at last thought of the obvious and added two entries - rocket science eh?

7D is a good camera though.
 
Just won an auction for a 50D with all the trimmings, grip, CF card etc etc, so hopefully with that & the 100-400 I'm all set :D Thanks for the advice here guys, much appreciated.
 
You're very welcome, and welcome to the most frustrating and rewarding hobby :)
 
50D turned up, and it absolutely stinks of cigarette smoke! It'll have to go back. This is turning into a complete nightmare. G1 and my old zoom lens are gone now, so I'm stuffed! Will have to buy from MPB this time around. I'm so annoyed!
 
:(

I once bought a fairly cheap lens second-hand which smelled of smoke. Good news is, within about a week the smell had totally dissipated.

Not the nicest thing, but perhaps give it a chance to come out? Depends how much leeway there is with the auction rules..
 
DoctorBob said:
:(

I once bought a fairly cheap lens second-hand which smelled of smoke. Good news is, within about a week the smell had totally dissipated.

Not the nicest thing, but perhaps give it a chance to come out? Depends how much leeway there is with the auction rules..
Click to expand...

Yeah but the lens ain't going on your face lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top