Long Lenses for Canon

Jelster

Jelster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,986
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I have, over recent months hired the 300 f2.8 with a 2x converter for shooting wildlife. To be fair, I never realy used the converter, but loved using the lens.

I'm now at a point where I have to make a decision. I have on loan a 100-400 which is very sharp, and I have the option of picking it up at a fair price, but wonder if I should be looking at anything else.

I really do want an IS lens, so the basic 400 f5.6 is out (and I have 400 f5.6 with the 100-400). I don't have a bottomless pit, but will look at the right lens for the right money. I hear people talk about some of the longer Sigma lenses, and wondered how good they really are, especially with a 1.4 TC.

My current telephoto arsenal consists of a 70-200 f4 (non IS) and 70-300 f4/f5.6 IS, which I'll probably move on. My main body is a 7D, and I hope to add a 5D MkII in the next 6 months or so (depends on the comission payments from the day job!) Any comments would be appreciated.

Steve
 
Last edited:
I had a 100-400 and moved it on in favour of the 300/4 IS. This is a really nice lens, I prefer it to the 100-400 and with a 1.4x on it gets to 420mm with no problems at all. I use it on my 7D predominantly and have found it quick to focus and a dream to use.
 
Now that's a thought.... 300 f4, which has IS, with a 1.4 TC.

Right, have to go a read a review !

swag72 said:
I had a 100-400 and moved it on in favour of the 300/4 IS. This is a really nice lens, I prefer it to the 100-400 and with a 1.4x on it gets to 420mm with no problems at all. I use it on my 7D predominantly and have found it quick to focus and a dream to use.
Click to expand...

Edit:

From The Digital Picture

However, if you can live with 300mm f/5.6, the 100-400 L adds the great versatility of a wide focal length zoom range that includes 400mm. If 400mm is your goal, the 100-400 will give you better results than the 300 f/4 and 1.4x combo.However, if you can live with 300mm f/5.6, the 100-400 L adds the great versatility of a wide focal length zoom range that includes 400mm. If 400mm is your goal, the 100-400 will give you better results than the 300 f/4 and 1.4x combo.
Click to expand...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

:thinking:
 
Last edited:
Just reading this thread, I borrowed a lens to take to Fairford Air tattoo.
It was a sigma 120-400 and I had an awfull time with focus.
It was cloudy which did not help but I just foundfthe lens really difficult to get any focus.
Is this typical of long lens on fast moving objects or is the Sigma particularly poor at focusing.
Im interested as i am considering a long zoom myself and would probably look at the Canon now after my experience.
 
Carl911 said:
Just reading this thread, I borrowed a lens to take to Fairford Air tattoo.
It was a sigma 120-400 and I had an awfull time with focus.
It was cloudy which did not help but I just foundfthe lens really difficult to get any focus.
Is this typical of long lens on fast moving objects or is the Sigma particularly poor at focusing.
Im interested as i am considering a long zoom myself and would probably look at the Canon now after my experience.
Click to expand...

Probably true of any lens on a cloudy or grey day.

Certainly true of the 400mm f5.6 at Leuchers in those conditions.
 
Depends on how much you're offered the sharp 100-400 lens for. Personally I love the flexibility of it and if you use an extender then don't forget you've got liveview and the zoom function to get critical focus.
 
Carl911 said:
Just reading this thread, I borrowed a lens to take to Fairford Air tattoo.
It was a sigma 120-400 and I had an awfull time with focus.
It was cloudy which did not help but I just foundfthe lens really difficult to get any focus.
Is this typical of long lens on fast moving objects or is the Sigma particularly poor at focusing.
Im interested as i am considering a long zoom myself and would probably look at the Canon now after my experience.
Click to expand...

Had this Sigma lens prior to getting my Canon 100-400 and have been amazed at just how much better the Canon is for focusing. Used my 100-400 at Fairford on the arivals Thursday which started very grey and wet but still managed to get good sharp results on 7D at 200 ISO
 
You have reached the same problems that many of us have already had to contend with. If you want a long lens + 400mm you either go for the budget sigma's like the 150-500mm f5-6.3 or 50-500mm (bigma), but you have the problems that they're soft wide open at 500mm (it has been reported that they're not true 500mm lenses either), so you'll need to stop down to achieve the best results, to achieve this you need good light especially at the higher shutter speeds, as for them taking a TC, yes they can, but manual focus only and you have even more problems achieving the right settings.

On a budget in good light, you can achieve very pleasing results, but performance significantly drops off.

You have the prime lenses, like the sigma 500mm f4.5 or canon f4, however these are very expensive, even on the 2nd hand market. Personally this is the way to go, however you do lose the flexibility of the zoom and they ain't cheap, although you could look at the 3rd party brands (sigma) primes.

The sigma 120-300mm f2.8 gives you the flexibility of a zoom, and its also fast. Does take the 1.4x and 2x TC, but again light conditions play apart in achieving good results. Cost abit more than the canon 100-400, but nowhere near the prices of the primes, or you have the sigma 100-300mm f4, another good lenses, although no IS

Then you have the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 which is flexible, affordable, but will struggle in poor light conditions and although it does take a TC, manual focus only.

I've successfully used the 300mm f4 and 300mm f2.8 lenses with and without the 1.4x TC to photograph motorsport and aviation, although I would be biting the hands off the photographic outlet if ever a 100-400 f4 or 200-400mm f4 lens was ever introduced to the market by canon
 
Jelster said:
I have, over recent months hired the 300 f2.8 with a 2x converter for shooting wildlife. To be fair, I never realy used the converter, but loved using the lens.
Steve
Click to expand...
I have had the 300/2.8 for around nine months now and it continues to amaze me. The bare lens is Stella as expected but with converters it is very, very good. at 420mm f4 the drop in IQ is barely noticeable. What surprised me most was the performance at 600/5.6 which I would says is very good - especially if you can stop down one.
I have even got good shots at 840/f8 (stacked 1.4 and 2x tc's).
 
Roy C said:
I have had the 300/2.8 for around nine months now and it continues to amaze me. The bare lens is Stella as expected but with converters it is very, very good. at 420mm f4 the drop in IQ is barely noticeable. What surprised me most was the performance at 600/5.6 which I would says is very good - especially if you can stop down one.
I have even got good shots at 840/f8 (stacked 1.4 and 2x tc's).
Click to expand...

The 2x TC is something that I've been contemplating for the 300mm f2.8 as a cheap alternative to achieve 600mm, although been put off with some of the reviews, however I've also seen some great images as well.
 
I had a loan of the 120 - 300 f2.8 Siggy and it was a great bit of kit.
See some pics of it here, and with the 1.4TC.

One to consider perhaps??
 
pete.rush said:
The 2x TC is something that I've been contemplating for the 300mm f2.8 as a cheap alternative to achieve 600mm, although been put off with some of the reviews, however I've also seen some great images as well.
Click to expand...
Pete, HERE are some of my samples shots with the 300/2.8 and 2x tc which may help. Click on the images for a larger view. I have not updated this gallery since February so I have far more shots than this with the 2x on board.
 
Last edited:
I would choose a lens in this order (if you insist on stabilization):
Canon 300mm f/4 IS
Sigma 50-500mm OS
Sigma 150-500mm OS
Canon 100-400mm IS
Sigma 80-400mm OS
Sigma 120-400mm OS

If you decide that you can do without IS/OS I would change the list to:
Sigma 120-300mm 2.8
Sigma 300mm 2.8
Canon 300mm f/4 IS
Sigma 50-500mm OS
Canon 300mm f4
Canon 400mm 5.6
Sigma 100-300mm f4
Sigma 150-500mm OS
Canon 100-400mm IS
Sigma 80-400mm OS
Sigma 120-400mm OS
 
Last edited:
micloi said:
I would choose a lens in this order (if you insist on stabilization):
Canon 300mm f/4 IS
Sigma 50-500mm OS
Sigma 150-500mm OS
Canon 100-400mm IS
Sigma 80-400mm OS
Sigma 120-400mm OS

If you decide that you can do without IS/OS I would change the list to:
Sigma 120-300mm 2.8
Sigma 300mm 2.8
Canon 300mm f/4 IS
Sigma 50-500mm OS
Canon 300mm f4
Canon 400mm 5.6
Sigma 100-300mm f4
Sigma 150-500mm OS
Canon 100-400mm IS
Sigma 80-400mm OS
Sigma 120-400mm OS
Click to expand...

I'm always surprised to see the Sigma 50-500 rated more highly than the 150-500.

It's not that I have the experience of the two in order to disagree, but it seems unlikely that a 10x zoom could be as impressive as one with a much smaller range:shrug:
 
micloi

I would put the canon 400mm f5.6 and 300mm f4 above the sigma 50-500mm, a prime lens always knocks the socks of a zoom, especially for autofocus speed and accuracy and I'm amazed you don't rate the 100-400mm, ok this lens has been prone to a few bad copies, but sigma can't hold their heads up high either. I friend has had several versions of the 120-300mm f2.8 and he's not completely satisfied with his current version. Stewart and lensesforhire doesn't rate the sigma 120-400mm because of all the problems he's (or his US counterparts) have had with it.
 
It is all a matter of opinion Pete.
First of all, to make it clear, I am talking about the new 50-500 OS with the stabilization and sharper glass. Reviews show that it is as sharp open wide as the old one stopped down to f8.

I rated the 50-500 over the 400mm and 300mm for the reason you mentioned, it is a zoom and a 10x one at that, and it also goes to 500mm, which neither of the 2 Canon zooms do so overall, again for me, is the lens I would choose.

As for the 100-400 I tested it against 150-500 and found it as soft at 400mm as the Sigma, it missed 100mm at the top and was much more expensive. Obviously that made get the 150-500 a better choice (for me) than the 100-400. Maybe, as you said, I tried a bad copy, fair enough but this was my experience.

Until now I owned/own or tested thoroughly the lenses below:
Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX
Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX DG
Sigma 300mm 2.8 EX DG
Sigma 120-400mm
Sigma 150-500mm
Canon 300mm f4 NON-IS
Canon 300mm f4 IS
Canon 400mm 5.6
Canon 300mm 2.8
Canon 400mm 2.8
Tokina 300mm 2.8

and probably a few I forgot to list
and
 
If you want 300mm first and foremost, which is kind of implied in the OP, then the 300L 4 is the clear contender at sensible money. And it takes the 1.4x extender very well, even if the 100-400L or 400L 5.6 are better at this focal length (obviously). The 300 is also a lovely lens to handle and use - best of the lot I'd say on that subjective point.

Bear in mind that with a 5D2 in prospect 300mm doesn't reach very far for wildlife.

This question comes up all the time, and I always say I wish Canon would produce a 500L 5.6 IS for a grand, but without that option it's a tricky choice. Most folks seem to end up with a 100-400L, as it's such a great all-rounder and excellent value (which it retains).
 
Hi Richard,

I agree with everything you say below, but I do wonder if 300mm is really enough, and that, at 400mm, the 100-400 is the way to go. When I look at some of the decent birding photos on here, they're often with a 400/500mm lens plus a 1.4 TC !!

I'm aware that 300 on a FF body would come up a bit short, but mentioning the 5D was to make sure that anybody suggesting Sigma lenses didn't think of a DX model.

I'd love the idea of a 500mm f5.6 with IS for a grand, sounds just the ticket !!

I think I'll have a look at the 300 f4, and then compare with the 100-400.

Steve

HoppyUK said:
If you want 300mm first and foremost, which is kind of implied in the OP, then the 300L 4 is the clear contender at sensible money. And it takes the 1.4x extender very well, even if the 100-400L or 400L 5.6 are better at this focal length (obviously). The 300 is also a lovely lens to handle and use - best of the lot I'd say on that subjective point.

Bear in mind that with a 5D2 in prospect 300mm doesn't reach very far for wildlife.

This question comes up all the time, and I always say I wish Canon would produce a 500L 5.6 IS for a grand, but without that option it's a tricky choice. Most folks seem to end up with a 100-400L, as it's such a great all-rounder and excellent value (which it retains).
Click to expand...
 
I currently shoot with a 7D body. Some years ago I bought a canon 100-400
5.6 and wasn't pleased with the results I got with it when using it around 400.
I found I was shooting at 380-400 all the time so I sold it and bought a 400 5.6.
I still am very satisfied with that decision as this lens provides tack sharp photos and has a very fast AF. It is great for BIF. Later I went through several
lenses for a bee shooting project that is lasting several years. I began with a macro and that put me too close to stinging insects....long story short...I ended
up with a canon 300mm f4 IS and love this lens. It is incredibly sharp and takes
tc's quite well making it very versatile. For my taste, it does not perform well
for BIF photos relative to the 400mm 5.6, so I keep them both. The 300mm is
great for perched birds and with the MFD being rather short, it works great for
insects as well. I've read online many places that the 300mm f4 non IS lenses
are considered to be sharper than the 300mm f4 IS versions. I have no direct
experience with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top