Please help me choose a Canon prime telephoto lens.

rayfin

rayfin

Suspended / Banned
Messages
256
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

My name is Ray. I have 'L' fever. It is incurable and it is a habit that needs feeding. There - I have admitted it - I'm a junkie.:)

I NEED a longer prime. I currently have a 70-200 f4 L and a 1.4 extender (giving me 280mm). I'm looking at either the 300mm f4 IS L or the 400mm 5.6 L . Kerso will do a good price on both and I have a voucher for the 300mm so I can do the math but don't want price to be the main consideration. Rather it should be the best lens for the job (I can't afford any f2.8s by the way!).

Photography will be airshows, human sport, motor sport and tame wildlife (oxymoron?) i.e normal countryside animals and birds.

As far as I see it the comparisons are:

Both lenses are superb optically and the user reviews all love both lenses;
The 300mm is faster and has IS;
The 400mm has a longer reach (obviously) but is slower;
Probably need monopod with 400mm but could get away without on 300mm ???;

I'm not sure the slowness of the 400mm is a problem for me (I used to use a 100-300mm which was slow) as I have a 5D and the higher ISO performance is great. With the extender I could get 560mm with this (with manual focus) as opposed to 420 with the 300mm.

Do you think the fixed 400mm will be too restrictive for following sport ? Will the 300mm give me better options for capturing the scene ? Also does anyone know how much I would need to crop a 300mm image to give the same effect as a 400mm. The 5D full frame can take a crop without losing too much quality I have found .

I can really see the good points for both lenses and always see ways around any disadvantages - which doesn't help me choose.

If I go for the 300mm will I always regret not getting that extra bit of reach ?

All advice gratefully received.

Ray

PS I have tried a 100-400L but didn't like the results :eek: so have discounted that option. (I think :thinking: )
 
rayfin said:
PS I have tried a 100-400L but didn't like the results :eek: so have discounted that option. (I think :thinking: )
Click to expand...

Hi Ray,

Interested to know what it is you didnt like about the results with the 100-400 ? I have one and like the results i get with it.

Cant help with the others as have never used either of the primes sorry.
 
fingerz said:
Bah. I was all set to start preaching the virtues of the 35L when I saw you needed a telephoto.

Still, if you ever want a standard prime, the 35L's the daddy.
Click to expand...

Sorry - should have put more thought into the title.

Can a MOD put telephoto in the title please ?
 
IanC_UK said:
Hi Ray,

Interested to know what it is you didnt like about the results with the 100-400 ? I have one and like the results i get with it.

Cant help with the others as have never used either of the primes sorry.
Click to expand...

My test of the 100-400L wasn't exactly scientific so I do worry I may have dismissed it too easily. It was a second hand version and I only had a 300D to test it on handheld. I wasn't impressed with the sharpness (or lack of) on any of the shots I took at varying lengths and apertures. Perhaps if I tried again with the 5D I might change my mind.

Ray
 
Ray,

Take a look at the Sigma 300mm 2.8, my recent purchase.

Superb and easily up there at a snip of a price. Fast, sharp, amazing build quality.

Refer to my football shots in the general sharing for some idea.

I rate it.

Diego. :)
 
Hola Diego,

I was hoping to not confuse myself by sticking to 2 options but you are correct the Sigma lenses are good value and I could always paint them white myself I suppose :D I will check them out. Are you using the 300mm 2.8 in place of the 100-400L ?

Muchos gracias
 
rayfin said:
Hola Diego,

I was hoping to not confuse myself by sticking to 2 options but you are correct the Sigma lenses are good value and I could always paint them white myself I suppose :D I will check them out. Are you using the 300mm 2.8 in place of the 100-400L ?

Muchos gracias
Click to expand...

Yes I am. The prime is noteably sharper than the 100 - 400L which stands to reason though the Canon push and pull behemoth was no slouch in itself. I decided to go prime due to ongoing press work tbh :)

Diego.
 
I borrowed a 300mm F4 at the recent Chester Zoo meet and it's very noticeably sharper than my 100-400L.
I recommend getting the 300mm F4 along with a 1.4x extender just in case you need the extra focal length.
 
I would opt for the 300 as you get the best of both worlds, IS and 420mm f/5.6 if you add the 1.4x - I'm doing the same soon as I've got the cash.
 
2 votes for the 300mm then. Faster, cheaper and has IS. Hmmmm ?

I have the 1.4 extender already (courtesy of Kerso of course).

Thanks

Ray
 
I would also recommend the 300mm F4 IS. Makes sense...
300mm F4
420mm F5.6 with a convertor (And still sharp)
Image stabilised

I was very close to this combo until a Sigma 120-300 came up at a nice price...
 
rayfin said:
2 votes for the 300mm then. Faster, cheaper and has IS. Hmmmm ?Ray
Click to expand...

Make that 3, I rented the 300 f4 + TC for the Chester Zoo meet & after reviewing my shots found that the images were sharper even with the 1.4tc than the 100-400 shots I took (thanks to Matt (Darksabre) for his kind loan of the lens) This is probably more important to me as I cannot crop too much without losing too much quality (1D). :shake:

RichardtheSane said:
I was very close to this combo until a Sigma 120-300 came up at a nice price...
Click to expand...

Sorry for the hijack: Just out of curiosity, how do you find this lens? I am seriously considering this but the amount of reviews on the web is staggering & I'm not sure what to do. Is it good with the convertors (Sigma ones are dedicated aren't they?)?

I am still considering the 300 combo unless I'm going to be verrrry impressed with the sigma. :shrug: :thumbs:
 
moomike said:
Sorry for the hijack: Just out of curiosity, how do you find this lens? I am seriously considering this but the amount of reviews on the web is staggering & I'm not sure what to do. Is it good with the convertors (Sigma ones are dedicated aren't they?)?
Click to expand...
In short, I love this lens - and I am very objective about my purchases!
It took a while to learn how to get the best from it. The important thing is it is more of an adjustable prime than a zoom - pick your focal lengh and stay there! Bloody heavy though!

I posted a review of this lens over at POTN comparing it to my 100-400L - and I've learned a bit since that review.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=150405
Hope this helps
 
I'd save for the f2.8 model unless you really, really, really need it now!

I'm selling my 100-400 when I get it back from Canon, it's currently away getting recalibrated after I had a new IS unit fitted and the focusing is out :(

I'm going to jump in the deep and get the 300 2.8 and the 1.4 tc as I've already got the 2x.

With those on, I'll have the perfect sports lens.

Personally, I like the results of my 100-400, pretty damn sharp but hate the push/pull mechinism.

My 0.02p,
Carl.
 
My vote would be for the 300 f4 IS
it gives you a few conbinations and is still very usable with a 2x.
when i had mine I found it very sharp and contrasty non of this was lost with the 1.4x. nice fast focusing and light and easy to carry about compared with the monster supertelephotos. (only sold mine to go to the 500 L and now onto the 600L IS which is just the "dogs hanging bits". but is a beast it is huge, but worth every single penny, my next buy is some one to carry it for me :D )
 
This is going to sound monotonous but I'm another one favouring the 300f4.
I have both the 300f4L and 100-400L.
There's no doubt the 300f4 even with Canons 1.4tc is sharper than the zoom.
As has been said it gives you IS plus 300mm and 420mm with tc and prime lens sharpness.
That said I would't be wouthout the flexibilty of the zoom.

If you need sharp get the prime.
For fast action sport, IS is out - you need the 2.8. :(
 
Id say, save for the 300mm F2.8, its a beauty, having seen Diegos results the Sigma up there with the Canon.

I switched from the 100-400 to the Canon 300f2.8IS recently myself, the sharpness and focusing speed is something else, totally in a differant league....imo.
 
DreederUK said:
I switched from the 100-400 to the Canon 300f2.8IS recently myself, the sharpness and focusing speed is something else, totally in a differant league....imo.
Click to expand...
Considering the prices difference it should be in a different league ;)
100-400 : £900
300 F2.8 : £2,600

The problem with saving for the 300 2.8 is the amount of shots you will miss whilst saving for it.
 
SDK^ said:
The problem with saving for the 300 2.8 is the amount of shots you will miss whilst saving for it.
Click to expand...
:lol: :lol:

Given my age if I save for the 2.8 it will probably arrive shortly after my funeral.

Thanks for all the responses guys. Not a single vote for the 400mm but I now have to consider the Sigmas as well. At least I can now do a direct comparison against the 300mm f4 IS.

Cheers

Ray
 
rayfin said:
Not a single vote for the 400mm
Click to expand...
I have the 400mm F5.6, its pretty damn sharp and I really like it. However, I need more reach and something that can cope with less light.

I havent found my answer yet but a 300mm F2.8 Sigma with a x1.4 and a x2 looks like the only currently affordable way for me to get to 600mm with AF!
 
mfwild13 said:
I havent found my answer yet but a 300mm F2.8 Sigma with a x1.4 and a x2 looks like the only currently affordable way for me to get to 600mm with AF!
Click to expand...

I think you could do a lot worse. I keep thinking about that option myself.
 
DreederUK said:
I got mine slightly less than that, £2550 from Kerso, bargain.
Click to expand...
I rounded up earlier - The 300mm F2.8 at Digital Rev is £2429 + £94 P&P with no VAT or import charges. So, just slightly cheaper and probably not worth ordering from HK if Kerso can supply at that price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top