Nothing over 200mm.. What to get?

[413x]

Having decided to swap my sigma 120-300mm f2.8 os for a canon 70-200mm is f2.8 ii I'm left lacking reach which is something I often want

Unfortunately the options at this end push the boundaries of cash and weight

Probably I'm thus needing a prime that has option of working with a 1.4tc

Options
Canon 300mm f2.8 is
Canon 400mm f5.6

The 400mm lacks is and I love is and being only 5.6 seems a bit.. Lacking
The 300mm would probably take a 1.4tc well and be better than 400..it is considerably more expensive

400mm f2.8. Too heavy and expensive
500mm +.. Likewise

The option I really want.. But probably will never justify is the
400mm DO mkii

Unfortunately I hear the MK I isn't good at all

It's this everything covered in the up to 2k-3k band covered?

 

[Janesy B]

Just get a 2x TC for the 70-200 f2.8?? Stops the need of carrying around loads of heavy lenses - which is why you ditched the Sigma...

 

[413x]

Just get a 2x TC for the 70-200 f2.8?? Stops the need of carrying around loads of heavy lenses - which is why you ditched the Sigma...

I'm really fussy with TC but I have to (I suppose) think about if the cost of this hobby is too much above this point.

I doubt a 2xtc would be as good as a 400mm f5.6?

 

[Janesy B]

Depends how hard you like to pixel peep but it'll be much cheaper and you'll have 140-400mm to use rather than being stuck at 400mm.

 

[D.P.]

Why are you getting rid of the Sigma? There isn't a big difference between the sigma 120-300m at 300mm and the Canon 300mm. OK, the prime is obviously veyr slightly sharper but not to a huge extent considering cost. The biggest difference is the Canon prime will take a 1.4xTC happily and a 2xTC OK, the sigma basically suck with any TC (well the 1.4X is usable but there is a big drop in IQ).


You haven't really said what you want to use the lens or and this has a big impact n choices, e.g. what focal length, what aperture.?

You have missed out a few options:
*) Canon 300mm f/4.0 IS + 1.4xTC - much lighter than any of the f/2.8 options, optically more or less as good.
*) Sigma 150-600mm f/6.3 Sports: bigger/more expensive than the C version or the Tamron but is marginally sharper, more over has the best auto-focus, especially for tracking an drop build quality. This option gives you the reach without low light capabilities.


And yeah, I wouldn't use a 2xTC on a 70-200mm

 

[413x]

I found the Sigma to heavy to be fun for days at the zoo for example - hence the new Canon 70-200
If I was out after wildlife it would mostly be at 300..so no need of the weight of the zoom

It seemed to be doing the job of two lenses but neither job well.

I can put a 1.4 on the Canon and have virtually what the Sigma achieved with a slight aperture loss but miles better IS

I'd rather not go away from Canon lenses they just seem to be "better" from personal experience at least

I suppose the 300mm f4 is an option but with a TC.

This isn't a rush choice and I may find I can't even justify the cost of anything more

 

[Phal]

I would honestly consider the 400 F5.6 despite the lack of IS

You don't mention any of the zooms?

Sigma/Tamron 150-600mm lenses - seem to get good reviews but not particularly light.
Canon 100-400mm mk1/mk2 (mk2 looks pretty awesome whereas the mk1 is cheap and not super)

 

[JohnStewart]

Another option to consider if you are concerned about weight is the Canon 100-400. It's slightly lighter than the 70-200 2.8 IS and has a very useful range. You can pick up good examples of the Mk 1 version for just over £500 if you can live with the push-pull zoom and lack of weather sealing.

I used to own a Mk 1 and it was fine in most conditions unless it was getting dark then the autofocus had a tendency to hunt a bit. I compared it to a Mk2 version last year and couldn't see much difference, but corner sharpness is supposed to be improved.

I've since sold mine as I didn't use it much after getting my 300 2.8 IS. It takes a 1.4x convertor very well and there's only a slight loss in image quality and focus speed on 1D bodies. The downside is the obvious weight, which is probably similar to your 120-300 2.8. Although it is easy to hand hold for short periods of time (typically up to 15 minutes for motor races), you really feel it after the end of a whole day/weekend!

I've not tried any of the DO lenses before - you can get a Mk1 400f4 for under £2k, but contrast isn't supposed to be that great and image quality little different from the much cheaper 400 f5.6.

I'd love a 200-400f4 with the built in 1.4x but the pricy is scary! Not much lighter than the back breaking 400 f2.8 either. I've tried a Mk 2 version of the 400 2.8 and the image quality and focus were superb, but definitely need a monopod for extended use.

 

[Phal]

I love my 200-400 - definitely the lens to have if you want flexibility with image quality but it's not light and definitely not cheap lol.

I would definitely love to have a go on a mk2 400mm DO

 

[D.P.]

I found the Sigma to heavy to be fun for days at the zoo for example - hence the new Canon 70-200
If I was out after wildlife it would mostly be at 300..so no need of the weight of the zoom

It seemed to be doing the job of two lenses but neither job well.

I can put a 1.4 on the Canon and have virtually what the Sigma achieved with a slight aperture loss but miles better IS

I'd rather not go away from Canon lenses they just seem to be "better" from personal experience at least

I suppose the 300mm f4 is an option but with a TC.

This isn't a rush choice and I may find I can't even justify the cost of anything more

there is very little weight difference between the Canon 300mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 120-300, especially in real world uses, and not much IQ difference. Yes the 70-200 is a very different lens and thus is way lighter ut the 2 aren't comparable. At the end of the day if you didn't like the sigma due to weight you wont like the 300mm f/2.8, the usage scenario is the game, you will need a big tripod and gimbal head and wont be going on 12 mile hikes up mountains with either.



Sonds like you need the 400mm f/5.6

 

[JohnStewart]

I love my 200-400 - definitely the lens to have if you want flexibility with image quality but it's not light and definitely not cheap lol.

I would definitely love to have a go on a mk2 400mm DO

You are right about the price, but it doesn't stop me dreaming Even to hire one for a weekend is into 3 figures by the time you consider postage. I've even considered buying a 2nd hand 500f4 and keeping my 300 2.8, but it's a huge weight to lug around all day for only occasional use.

 

[And]

The 300 f4 is optically some way off the f2.8. AF on the 300f4 without a TC is noticeably slower than the 2.8.

Slap a 1.4x on the 300 f4 and you're slowed down quite a lot and lose a degree of sharpness. I wouldn't bother with the 2x on it.

The 300 2.8 takes both 1.4x and 2x very well. Minimal slowdown and sharpness loss with 1.4x, noticeable slowdown with 2x but the sharpness is still pretty good.

for reference: I own the 300f4 and we have 300f2.8 (Mk1s) at work which I've used many times on a number of canon bodies (1D MkIV/1DX/7D/7DII). I do like the 300f4 (bare) for bugs and small things, close focus is 1.5m and it takes tubes well if you need to get closer.

*) Canon 300mm f/4.0 IS + 1.4xTC - much lighter than any of the f/2.8 options, optically more or less as good.

 

[munge]

Have a 70-200 2.8 that I use with a 2xTC and seems to provide good reach. It won't obviously give me 500 or 600mm zoom but I can always crop and the images are pretty good.

The only downside is the loss of aperture to a minimum of 5.6, but at full zoom, I'm not sure that the difference is massively noticeable.

 

[Phal]

Yeah, the 300mm F4 along with the 200-400 seem to be the two best large primes to use for small stuff like Butterflies and Dragonflies

 

[Andy90]

Yeah, the 300mm F4 along with the 200-400 seem to be the two best large primes to use for small stuff like Butterflies and Dragonflies

or you could get a Canon 100mm Macro (L or Non L) and take photographs of Butterflies and Dragonflies from around 30cm away rather than waaaaaay back.

First thing in the morning or early evening rather than in the middle of the day when they've warmed up and will fly away.

 

[Phal]

or you could get a Canon 100mm Macro (L or Non L) and take photographs of Butterflies and Dragonflies from around 30cm away rather than waaaaaay back.

First thing in the morning or early evening rather than in the middle of the day when they've warmed up and will fly away.

Yeah there's that too I've got the 100mm F2.8L lens and I bought it with my first DSLR because I knew I wanted a decent macro lens.

Once you've worked with a 100mm ish macro lens for a while you soon learn the limitations of having to get so close (Extra patience is needed generally). You can either choose to accept those range limitations or find workarounds I've had some green shots of Dragonflies and Butterflies with my 200-400 that simply couldn't get with a 100mm lens (short of sticking it at the end of a stick and holding it out over water or bushes).

On the flipside, the 100mm lens does things my 200-400 can't like get me in closer when space is tight and of course it gives me a F2.8 aperture.

That's been my experience anyway!



Getting back to the OP, have you looked at the 100-400mm Mk2?

 

[413x]

Is there a need for the 100-400mm mkii?
It's just a shame it covers the same range as the 70-200mm + tc
But it probably is the only one.
I really don't want a non is 400mm f5.6. It's just not going to be worth it especially without is (I love canons IS.)

I really want the DO ii it seems the 300 2.8 is of similar weight? That is a shame!

So it seems it's between 400mm (but I can't see me being able to stomach the cost) or 100-400mm.. Which seems a bit over the top as I'd prefer a prime as anything less can be done with canon 70-200mm is ii

 

[413x]

or you could get a Canon 100mm Macro (L or Non L) and take photographs of Butterflies and Dragonflies from around 30cm away rather than waaaaaay back.

First thing in the morning or early evening rather than in the middle of the day when they've warmed up and will fly away.

It's there any merit in the Canon 180mm macro?

My canon 100mm macro L is my favourite lens and my first ever lens too.

 

[Andy90]

It's there any merit in the Canon 180mm macro?

My canon 100mm macro L is my favourite lens and my first ever lens too.

I've not got one or used one, but apparently it is still a superb lens. Gives you that extra distance from small stuff but still retains the 1:1 ratio.

The review on The Digital picture.com also shows what it can do with backgrounds when the subject is framed identically. There is an example shot taken on a 180mm, 100mm and 60mm macro lens half way down the review to show the difference with the backgrounds.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-180mm-f-3.5-L-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

Another review at

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/180mm-f35.htm

 

[Phal]

Is there a need for the 100-400mm mkii?
It's just a shame it covers the same range as the 70-200mm + tc
But it probably is the only one.
I really don't want a non is 400mm f5.6. It's just not going to be worth it especially without is (I love canons IS.)

I really want the DO ii it seems the 300 2.8 is of similar weight? That is a shame!

So it seems it's between 400mm (but I can't see me being able to stomach the cost) or 100-400mm.. Which seems a bit over the top as I'd prefer a prime as anything less can be done with canon 70-200mm is ii

The 400mm F5.6L lens never really appealed to me because of the lack of zoom and lack of IS but since then I've seen the kind of shots it produces and when you combine that with the size/weight, it does make me want to try one hehe.

The 100-400mm mk2 does cover the same focal lengths that you have but it'll probably be stuck at 400mm when you're using it anyway hehe