need lens recommendations (canon)

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by THRESHIN, Apr 13, 2018.

  1. THRESHIN

    THRESHIN 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,770
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Hello and thanks for any help. Finding the right long lens has been a real pain for me. So I'm looking for a good telephoto lens for canon, I don't care if it's a knock off like sigma, tokina, etc.

    Little background: my camera is a t5i. I have no need to upgrade now, but can see buying something better as the years go on.

    I have built up a nice collection of lenses, very much specific scenario oriented. Well my zoom lens is a piece of crap.

    I was stupid enough to buy the canon 75-300mm iii usm. It was cheap and I admit I didn't know any better then. Let me tell you guys, this thing is awful. Focus accuracy? It doesn't have any. Hunts badly and often doesn't focus properly. Lots of distortion and really kinky lighting effects like unexpected lens flares. But that's a feature right?

    I finally had enough last summer at a good friend's wedding. This thing couldn't focus for the life of it. And it was an outdoor wedding.

    So....I've asked around and people keep recommending the L series. Well I don't really have the money for that and isn't that overkill for a t5? Even used, I'd be looking at $800-1000 (can).

    Any good alternatives? I have no urge to become professional. I like my current job thanks :)
     
  2. Zepher

    Zepher [H]ipster Replacement

    Messages:
    16,257
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2001
    I was given this older Canon 28-70 F/2.8 L lens many years ago. Had excellent image quality.
    probably be able to get one of these for a few hundred, vs $1000+ for the 24-70L.

    canon-28-70l.jpg

    I will say that the L lenses I've used over the years focused fast and accurate in all kinds of lighting conditions.
     
  3. THRESHIN

    THRESHIN 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,770
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Wow you got lucky, that's a nice piece of glass.

    I've been eyeing the L series 100-400mm for quite some time. They're wonderful lenses, just trying to see if there's a cheaper option that will fit my needs.

    I'm really looking for something that goes up to 300mm at the least.
     
  4. TeleFragger

    TeleFragger Gawd

    Messages:
    649
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005

    well what is your need? do you need low light like you said at that wedding?

    if you don't mind not indoors then yes the 100-400 is great.
    indoor weddings.. everyone uses a 70-200 2.8 and typically a canon L II will run you $2400 new..

    I use a 70-200 2.8 from Tamron and it is just awesome... you will not find anything in good price over 200mm at 2.8... rest are prime lenses and gonna cost big bucks

    33265304580_0b61794754_k.jpg Brigantine Girls.jpg (22 of 22) by Jeffrey Riggs, on Flickr

    32766943673_2cc9e7e919_h.jpg 2017-03-21_11-17-28 by Jeffrey Riggs, on Flickr

    33468438986_631239980a_b.jpg 191A9884 by Jeffrey Riggs, on Flickr





    bought used...
    $900

    got lens, box, tripod ring, 1.4 teleconverter!!!!!!

    33381050811_22df4d007e_b.jpg 191A9836 by Jeffrey Riggs, on Flickr



    if you click my name under the photo.. it will take you there and you can see the settings..

    albeit I am using a canon 7d mark ii

    example on the dog one.. it locked on her back but she was shaking so fast..
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/riggzie/33265304580/in/datetaken-public/
     
  5. THRESHIN

    THRESHIN 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,770
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Appreciate the response. Mostly I'm looking for something to cover the long range when I need it. Some wildlife use when I go for a hike. I don't think it would be often I'd need the low aperture, but it's not a bad idea at the same time.

    Had a thought: the 70-200 f2.8 you mentioned and a magnification ring adapter for when I need the range? Never used one, but from what I understand you just lose a couple f-stops which is just fine for what I'm after.

    Then again probably expensive....

    I'm really just looking for a replacement for my POS 75-300. Trying to make a short list so I can watch the used market.

    As far as weddings go, it's not like I go to a lot and I'm not going to shoot one. If I did I'd rent some better gear as necessary. Once the wedding got inside for the reception, I switched over to my sigma 30mm f1.4 and a speedlight. I really do love that 30mm :)

    Range didn't matter since I was mingling while shooting.
     
  6. TeleFragger

    TeleFragger Gawd

    Messages:
    649
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    gotcha..
    so if low aperature isn't really needed..

    ive always wanted the sigma 50-500mm as it goes across a broad range but not sure how you will like it.

    then there is
    Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG APO OS (Optical Stabilizer) HSM AutoFocus Lens
    Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2
     
  7. UnknownSouljer

    UnknownSouljer [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,544
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Honestly a solid 70-200mm is what most people need. Just in terms of useful focal length and versatility (versatility being: at f/2.8 it makes pleasing portraits, it works indoors for events, is long enough for everything but the most demanding long distance wildlife and long distance sports shots). If you don't want the speed, then I'd go for the 100-400. But that lens really is strictly for outdoors. Unless you have a newer full-frame camera that can really crank up the ISO. But even in that case, I'd still take the shorter focal length and faster lens to keep the ISO down.

    Whether you're buying either, I'd recommend going used. Canon lens price has dropped a lot recently on the used market. I've seen multiple 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II's go for $1300-$1500 on FredMiranda. Having a box and a shiny lens isn't nearly as important as $500-$1000 in my pocket, but I'm a very practical person when buying gear. If "new car smell" is important to you, then I think it's a lot harder to justify the cost.
    Otherwise Tamron makes a decent option that costs far less, that I did use for a wedding. It performed well enough. I would say the Tamron 70-200 renders colors a bit more warmly and has a bit more barrel distortion on the long end. But I found that both of those problems were easily correctible in post. I also think it was slightly less sharp than the Canon, but that might just be bias in perception.
    Sigma also has an option of course, but I don't have first had experience with them.
    If you're annoyed enough at your 70-300mm, just know in advance that no lens will focus as well as a Canon "L" lens in comparison with the competition. That said, I will admit that the Tamron at least performed quite well. And for the most part only had a few focus errors. But for the most part locked on without issue.

    ===

    In terms of investing in glass for your current body? Well that's up to you. If photography is something you're taking seriously as a hobby or otherwise then it's perfectly reasonable to invest in the glass. You have a body that works now and you can carry all the full frame glass with you indefinitely into the future as long as you're on Canon or on another system that can take a Canon EF mount. At some other point you can invest in a new body if and when you're ready. The T5i is a solid camera, and will likely do everything you want or need it to do for some time.
    Really most of the upgrades will be for sensor tech, faster burst rates, full frame, and megapixels. And while that list might seem like a big deal, it really isn't. When you understand how that limits you. And honestly, it doesn't limit you that much if not at all, if you're not shooting the types of photography that utilize those things.

    tl;dr: Investing in glass over body, generally always makes sense.
     
  8. THRESHIN

    THRESHIN 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,770
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Thanks for that. You've been very helpful. What I'm getting out of this is get an L series, kinda what I figured.

    And yes I'm very happy with me t5i, upgrading will probably be when it's dead. I do see the value in moving my lenses over, I've collected a few nice ones. I managed to score a tokina 11-16 f2.8 wide angle for $200 a while back :) there's a good chunk out of the plastic edge on the end of the glass where you'd attach a hood, other than that works perfectly.

    I have read that a good lens and crappy camera body is far superior to crappy lens and good body.

    I think I'm going to keep an eye out for the 70-200 f2.8 now, you're right in that it'll offer me a lot of versatility.IIf I need more focal length, I'll just get a range extender later.

    Thanks guys.
     
  9. UnknownSouljer

    UnknownSouljer [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,544
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001

    If you need to save money, that's perfectly reasonable. Although there are a bunch of nuts in here such as myself that want to never compromise and buy the most crazy expensive equipment, that isn't reasonable for everyone.

    So, along with what I said in my last post, here are some tips:

    1.) Buy used (yeah, I already said this. Check FredMiranda.com, eBay, Craigslist, and Facebook marketplace, shop around!)
    2.) Consider buying a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (Mark I and not II). Doing this will probably save you another $500 and it's 90-95% of the Mark II. There are rumors a mark III is in the pipeline. Not that you can afford to wait, but if you can, the used price on the II will likely drop like a rock after its release.
    3.) Consider buying third party. Sigma and Tamron have been stepping up their game for a while now. I've heard good things about the Sigma. And after first hand experience on a real job with the Tamron, I can say it will do the trick (I didn't like its ergonomics in comparison with Canon, but considering the savings, that might be a minor complaint). If you want to do your own tests, going to a local shop and either testing it there or better yet doing a rental might be worth all the money it costs just to know for sure if you like something or not without committing to a purchase. Additionally it will allow you to actually test whether the 70-200mm is long enough for you in your personal usage cases. $60 is a "relatively" minor amount to invest on a likely $1000+ purchase.
     
  10. bman212121

    bman212121 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,512
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    I've rented many of the lenses that would fit into your category.

    Canon L 400mm f5.6
    Canon L 100 - 400mm f5.6 IS II
    Tamron 150 - 600mm f5-6.3 (non G2)
    Canon L 70 - 200mm F2.8 IS II

    100 - 400
    Of that group, if I were going to purchase something, it would be the 100 - 400mm without a shadow of a doubt. If shooting outdoors the F2.8 isn't feature #1. (I won't say it isn't needed or you couldn't use it, it's just not the end all be all) That lens has plenty of zoom to it, it's (EDIT: not that *light*, but well balanced), compact, the IS is crazy good. It focuses faster than you can imagine, and the biggest point is that it's focus is dead accurate. All of the L lenses that I've used are completely different beast when it comes to focusing. The non L cheaper lenses will focus and hunt, and can struggle from time to time. That just doesn't happen on any L I've used. It never overshoots it's focus target, and if it's locked on it won't completely lose focus and have to rack focus the entire way and back to regain it.

    70 - 200
    For me I shoot small objects like birds, or trying to shoot small / medium sized wildlife that you just aren't getting that close to. It may be weird to say but I actually didn't like the 70 - 200. It's absurdly heavy, and I think more so is that it's front heavy, so it's constantly trying to pull the front of the lens downward. The 200mm distance is just way too short for anything I would be able to get close enough to shoot with it. I tried it with a non canon TC and the results were not that great. I'm guessing you'd really want to shell out for their TC if you were going to want to use one. I think the overall use case for that lens is quite limited, because there is no way you'd buy it for 70mm, because you'd just use a different lens for that. Anytime I'd want to put something on a camera body where I know I'll have to need above 70mm, I know I'd want a lot more than 200. If you were shooting weddings, graduations, or other indoor events I can see where it would make sense because there is no way you'd give up 2 stops indoors for the reach. Outside I think it's far more important that you can somewhat "fill the frame" with usable data than it is to have 2 extra stops on the data you do have.

    150 - 600
    The Tamron, it's an ugly duckling. It's not super heavy, but it's just so bulky. If you have the hood on the front expect it to draw attention from others because of it's massive size. It zoom creeps really badly and there's not much you can do about it. Every time you pick it back up expect to have to refocus it because it will have slid to 600mm with the nose down. The focus is average at best, and it's tracking ability is terrible. It's actually really hard to find a subject with it zoomed in at 600 if you have it on a crop sensor, so I always needed to start at like 400mm and try to zoom it in from there. I really think it's only useable to around 400mm if you're going to hand hold it, so despite having more reach, it really doesn't in most cases. The lens seems most at home if it's sitting on a tripod, IS off, and you have a static subject you can spend some time trying to focus on. If you have all day to play with the focus and it's on a tripod, it does take really good pictures, and I think you can get some advantage out of the 600mm. If you're pressed for time and / or don't have a tripod, I don't think you can take advantage of the extra reach, so then you're just left with a below average 400mm.

    400
    Despite only having 1 focus point, it's the right focus point. This lens is actually an absolute pleasure to use. It's really light, it's compact, it has a built in hood. It has decently quick focus, and it's accurate. Images are pretty sharp since it's a prime, and not having IS isn't a deal breaker at all if you have fast moving subjects. (If I'm already shooting 1/800 IS doesn't need to be on) It's funny because you'll read how everyone who had these ditched them for that tamron, but then everyone who picked up that tamron ditched it for the 100 - 400. I personally think the 400 is a better lens than the tamron, and if you can get past the "but it has 600mm" the good ol L is just superior in so many ways. I bet you can find one now for dirt cheap in the used market, and it would put your 75 - 300mm to shame.


    The one that I would actually like to try still is the Sigma version of the 150 - 600mm. The sport version is basically 2x the Tamron, but hopefully it makes the ergonomics and generally usability better. I don't recall if that one give you drop in filters, but you're going to drop a pretty penny if you wanted a polarizer to try to fit the Tamron. So I'd agree that L lenses carry a hefty price tag, and they are completely justified for having it. I just wouldn't pick up the same one that UnknownSouljer would for what I'd use it for. I can't say as I've ever taken a headshot in my life, so the portrait advantage to a 70 - 200mm would be lost on me. That's why you need to figure out what YOU would need a lens for, not what everyone else does.

    I would definitely suggest trying to rent the one you're considering from a place like Lensrentals.com. Roger runs a tight ship and anything I've rented from there is in great shape and works well. The hardest part is sending it back when you're done. (The process is easy, they give you the return label and you just drop it off to FedEx or whatever is on the label. It's the sadness of putting it back in the box and letting it go back that's the hard part.) But what's really cool is if you decide "This is the one" you can actually buy the copy you rented from them, and they will roll the rental cost into the purchase price. So you can pick up a used copy for a used price, make sure it functions perfectly and that you love it before spending money on it. It's probably not the cheapest you could find them used for, but you'll know the shape of the item before you pony up the cash.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2018
  11. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge Not the Idiot YOU are Looking for

    Messages:
    6,427
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Beware of size creep!

    Anything larger than a 70-300 or faster than f/4 is pushing into unwieldy territory.

    I have two recommendations: Canon's 55-250 IS STM, which cannot be beat on size/weight/quality/price, and their 70-300 IS Nano-USM, same for full-frame. I'd recommend the second given that it will work on a 6D or 5D as well, but the crop lens is just so fricking awesome that it cannot go without being recommended.
     
  12. bman212121

    bman212121 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,512
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    I'd agree that some of the lenses are to get unwieldy very fast. the 150 - 600's are all gigantic lenses. The 70 - 200 is decent sized, but you can still fit it into small camera bag with the tripod ring on it. I consider it a bit unwieldy for what it is, mainly because it's top heavy. Attached to a little t5i and the balance is going to be way off. I've used the 55-250, it's a decent lens, but it's not an amazing lens. It's slow to focus, and it will definitely hunt, especially if the lighting isn't great. It takes good pictures, but not amazing ones. I don't think OP is going to see a large gain going from the 75-300mm to another lens that's in the same price range. I would agree it's definitely a great bargain for the price point, and the fact that it's plastic isn't a big deal for most of the users of the lens. That does make it super light, and the small aperture makes it compact and filters are cheaper, etc. etc. I'd throw all of that out the window in a heartbeat and use a 100 - 400mm is II instead. It's no doubt heavy compared to the others, but it has a good balance. It does still fit in a small camera bag, it's actually fairly short for what it is, but a lot bigger around. (I just looked at the specs and the 70 - 200 and 100 - 400 are almost the same size and weight, but the feel of the two are quite different IMO)

    I'm hating on the 70 - 200mm a bit, but it's still in a league of it's own. Even if you don't need f2.8 for your shot, that's what the camera uses to focus with before it stops down to your aperture. It makes a huge difference in focusing ability, and simply cannot be understated how much darker a room can be while the lens still works. If your primary focus was indoor events, it's well worth the tradeoff for the price / weight / size for one of those lenses and the difference on the final product will be obvious. If you can get the job done with a 55-250, then by all means I wouldn't suggest anything else if you are happy with the results it's giving you. There is no way I'd be coughing up the dough for something more expensive if I didn't need it. For the OP their requirements might have exceeded the capabilities of the lens, so they need to move up a step or find ways to work around the limitations of what they have.
     
  13. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge Not the Idiot YOU are Looking for

    Messages:
    6,427
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Let me add some perspective: I could own a 70-200, but don't, because I simply wouldn't use it for my shooting. I do own a 150-600 behemoth, which I love, and will probably pick up the 70-300 Nano-USM as a tull-frame zoo lens for my 6D if I don't decide to go mirrorless full-frame soon, or maybe even if I do.

    I also own the 55-250 IS STM. Be specific about the STM part; it's significantly better than the previous version, which I also owned. Much better image quality and focusing on the STM version. But what makes it special is just how light and compact it is. It's the perfect zoo/daylight field sports/travel tele lens for a Rebel, one of the crop semi-pros, or in my case, adapted to Canon's crop mirrorless camera.

    Re: any Canon 7x-300 that isn't the L or the new Nano-USM: these lenses are not in the same league. They were crappy on film and low-resolution DSLRs, and might as well be made of polished coke bottles when used on a 24MP cropper like the OP's T5i, and they certainly have very poor focus mechanisms. I wish Canon wouldn't sell them at all.

    Another lens to look at is Tamron's 70-210/4; Canon's 70-200/4L IS is an aging lens, and while still decent, the new Tamron will likely be a better product until Canon updates theirs- at which point the Tamron will be a great product and cheaper :).

    Specific links:

    Canon 55-250 IS STM -should be in any Canon crop-shooter's bag; get it refurbished, on sale, or both
    Canon 70-300 IS USM II (Nano USM) -excellent full-frame alternative to the above
     
  14. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge Not the Idiot YOU are Looking for

    Messages:
    6,427
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    And effit, I grabbed one of the refurbished 70-300 II lenses from Canon's site. This will be me fourth or fifth Canon refurbished, all have been stellar and not in need of the 1-year warranty that Canon gives them (same as retail). $433 shipped for the best lens in its class, since I just moved to a new city and have some exploring to do!


    [I did have the 70-300 IS USM, an older version with fake USM, that was decent to about 250mm... but it took a short drop; it was also refurbished]
     
  15. Skillz

    Skillz [H]ard DCOTY 2017

    Messages:
    21,071
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Don't go cheap on lenses. They will last longer than the camera body.
     
  16. THRESHIN

    THRESHIN 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,770
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Thanks guys,this is all great info. I do have a tamron, tokina and sigma lenses in my kit and very happy with them all. From what I've read the canon L series is far superior for a long lens however. I'll keep looking.

    The good news is I'm in no rush. If there's a v3 coming, I can easily wait for that.

    I'm definitely leaning towards the 70-200 f2.8 just to have that low aperture available should I need it. Yes there's some image quality sacrifice, but throw on a 2x magnification adapter and I get a 140-400 f4.8 lens for outdoor stuff.

    I'll have to read all these responses more carefully when I have the time, at work today :(
     
  17. THRESHIN

    THRESHIN 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,770
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    So I've still been hunting for used glass, not much success so far. I'm finding that the 70-200mm f2.8 mk1 is going to cost me around $1400 at best and I'd like to stick the 1.4 range extender on it at the very least. By the time I'm done I could be looking at $2000 CAD. It's just too much, and I feel like that's best case. I don't see myself using a zoom lens indoors often.

    That brings me back to the 100-400. But besides that, had an interesting find today. Local hock shop has a 24-105mm f4 L lens. $700 CAD which is pretty much going rate on kijiji. Plus the kijiji route I'd have to drive 2 hours each way...

    Plus I can trade in my crappy lenses and bring the cost down. The 75-300mm usm iii is some real butt grade crap so I won't miss that. I also have the crappy 18-55mm is kit lens that comes with just about every rebel. This would replace that.

    End of the day, I'd still need to grab a 100-400. Probably around $900 used. I'm just wondering if I'm going completely overboard for a t5i. But then I'd have a very complete set of glass that I'd keep forever....decisions decisions....

    If anyone was thinking of it, I decided to say no to the 70-200 f4. Nice lens, but with IS it'll cost as much as the 100-400. Just seems pointless.
     
  18. TeleFragger

    TeleFragger Gawd

    Messages:
    649
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Well its not overboard to the t5i... bodies are replacable as the lens is where the investment is. I have the 24-105 as its my tyoical goto lens for indoor with flash or local walking around.
     
  19. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge Not the Idiot YOU are Looking for

    Messages:
    6,427
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    This lens is, well, passable on the older full-frame cameras, but is essentially too slow, narrow, and not particularly sharp for effective use on say a Rebel. Cannot recommend.

    These are generally crappy in terms of build quality and probably AF accuracy but they're also usually fairly sharp stopped down, and they're light, small, and basically free! I recommend keeping one so long as you own a crop camera.
     
    TeleFragger likes this.
  20. THRESHIN

    THRESHIN 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,770
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    I personally find my kit lens to not be very sharp at all...that's what started this whole fiasco. The 24-105 I looked at today was pretty damn good at least so I thought. It's not ideal at f4 but the 18-55 kit lens goes up to 4.5 zoomed in anyway.

    Still have some research to do I've been doing a lot and not really finding any options I'm happy with so far. either expensive and good or cheaper and several trade offs.
     
  21. TeleFragger

    TeleFragger Gawd

    Messages:
    649
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Fyi the 24-105 is better at f5.6 ...
     
  22. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge Not the Idiot YOU are Looking for

    Messages:
    6,427
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Welcome to photography!

    It most certainly is. It has never been a 'great' lens, but it is certainly effective in a number of situations. The challenge for a crop camera not only is that the 24-105/4L is slow at f/4, but that the T-stop (actual brightness) drops toward the long end, and then you'll have to stop down to f/5.6 to get it to sharpen up. It works on full-frame because the pixel density is significantly lower- it's great on my 20MP full-frame 6D!- but I wouldn't use it on my EOS-M5 with its 24MP APS-C sensor except as a last resort.

    To the OP: the reason that you're having trouble finding a faster standard zoom for your crop DSLR is because manufacturers have neglected this space for over a decade. Most of your more current options will come from Tamron or Sigma, and particularly Sigma's 17-50/2.8 OS and 17-70/2.8-4 OS lenses.

    In terms of telephoto work: Sigma and Tamron's 100-400 lenses are brand new and sharper than Canon's last-gen 100-400L. See if you can't get one on sale.
     
    northrop likes this.
  23. THRESHIN

    THRESHIN 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,770
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Thanks guys. Been trying but the market for used is limited. Guess keep trying.

    I decided to take a pass on the 24-105. I admit that I didn't have a chance to really examine the images on my desktop until this morning. Very underwhelming at f4. If it doesn't look good at f4, I figure why bother.
     
  24. northrop

    northrop grumman

    Messages:
    9,270
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Where have you been looking?

    FM has a very large used gear section, and then there's https://www.keh.com/ and if you don't mind paying extra, the usual BH and Adorama also sell used gear. You can also buy some of the used gear from places like BL if you don't mind getting something that's probably been beat to shit.
     
  25. THRESHIN

    THRESHIN 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,770
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Well I finally made a decision today after much deliberation. I bought the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM. This is the newer one with the LCD display. Read a few reviews and they spoke highly of this one. One even found it comparable to the 100-400 L mk2 but I'd question that...still, this thing is very good.

    It occurs to me that I've never used good image stabilization. Only the cheaper more simple type. This one is very good, have to say I'm impressed.

    So I decided to say no to something better used for a couple reasons. One is I like to inspect and test a used lens so internet order is out. That's why I favor kijiji. My options through kijiji are limited locally and I really don't have the time to go to another city right now.

    Price was a big factor. This lens does exactly what I was looking for at $520 brand new. A used beaten up 100-400 L would cost me $900 minimum. Keep in mind these prices are CAD

    From a few test shots in the backyard. This lens is quite sharp and also focuses very fast and accurately. I'll try to post a couple later.


    I did want to thank everyone. Your suggestions did not go to waste. It was only by considering all the options that I was able to select the best one for my needs.
     
    IdiotInCharge likes this.
  26. newbs

    newbs Gawd

    Messages:
    691
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Well I'm late to the party but glad you stayed with canon. I was going to recommend the canon 70-200 f4, it's compact and amazing and honestly I use mine more then my 70-200 2.8.
     
    TeleFragger likes this.
  27. THRESHIN

    THRESHIN 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,770
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    No reason to leave canon. I'm fairly cheap and I have a pretty good set of glass now. Just need a mid range at some point but I don't use that much anyway.WWhy waste money on switching?

    I did give the 70-200 f4 serious thought. It has two problems for me. One was I wanted a focal length of at least 300mm for nature shots on a hike. OK maybe I can make do with 200mm, but on the used market here the non-IS version is $500-600. With IS it's closer to $1000. Maybe $800 at best. At that price I felt like I might as well get the 100-400mm IS mk1.

    This is why I was beating my head against the wall so much. The prices don't really make sense.
     
  28. BB Gun

    BB Gun [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,440
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    You probably made your best choice given your envelope of requirements. The 100-400L isn't "Yuge", but it is fairly heavy after a while on a hike. I love my first gen 100-400L for my ground-to-air airshow pics, the perfect lens on a crop camera for that purpose.
     
  29. IdiotInCharge

    IdiotInCharge Not the Idiot YOU are Looking for

    Messages:
    6,427
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    The 'L' lenses have their own premium; other brands have similar designations, and what makes it harder is that sometimes those lenses are the only ones available at a particular focal length.