Canon Telephoto Lens ??

steveo

steveo

steveo

Soldato
Joined
12 May 2005
Posts
5,146
Location
Ripon, North Yorkshire
Am looking at getting a decent telephoto lens for general use for my 5D, at the moment i dont have anything over 50mm so am needing something with some reach, when the season kicks of again am wanting to get some shots of my brother in laws cricket team and my mates rugby team in action, and am wanting to use it for wildlife at Zoos, birds in the garden and the Farne islands Puffins :D like i said general use.

in my price range at the moment is the Canon 70-200mm F4 IS which gets great reviews and stunning shots, while the 2.8 IS would be nice i cant justify the price or the weight, my concern with the lens is if the reach is not enough on a full frame lens or if there are other options like the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM for £920 secondhand or something else :confused:

help and advice would be great here guys
 
Personally I'd get the 70-200, for wildlife though, I guessit may be slightly short, but you could always buy one of the extenders slightly down the line.

The 70-200 f4 is is quite high in my list, because like you, I don't really want to spend the extra on the 2.8. I also feel if down the line I need a bit more I could get a 1.4 or 2 extender for it.

That said the 100-400 is quite good as well.

To give full coverage, it might be worth looking at the sigma 120-400(?) and the sigma 50-500

kd
 
steveo said:
Am looking at getting a decent telephoto lens for general use for my 5D, at the moment i dont have anything over 50mm so am needing something with some reach, when the season kicks of again am wanting to get some shots of my brother in laws cricket team and my mates rugby team in action, and am wanting to use it for wildlife at Zoos, birds in the garden and the Farne islands Puffins :D like i said general use.

in my price range at the moment is the Canon 70-200mm F4 IS which gets great reviews and stunning shots, while the 2.8 IS would be nice i cant justify the price or the weight, my concern with the lens is if the reach is not enough on a full frame lens or if there are other options like the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM for £920 secondhand or something else :confused:

help and advice would be great here guys
Click to expand...

Fr birds, on a full frame camera you are looking at the 100-400L minimum (the new 70-200mm f/2.8 IS with 1.4x and 2.0x TCs will allow more flexibility but less convenient and more expensive).

Put it this way, for birds on a crop body I am find the 300mm f4.0 with 1.4xTC to be the minimum. E.b., even getting with 10 ft of bird will leave it small in the frame for your finishes and such like. That is an effective FL of about 630mm. There is a reason why bird photographers on FF will be the 600mm and even then throw on 1 or more TCs...

Yu might want to look at the sigma 50-500mm, or canon 400mm f/5.6L both a reconsiders standard bird lens on a budget.

And before some inexperienced person claim a 200mm is all you need and you just have to get closer, small things that scare easily need a big lens even if you are hidden in a bird hide.
 
Last edited:
well then thats either the canon 100-400 L or a sigma 120-300 2.8 non OS ie older model, the sigma's weight is just to much for walking around a zoo with plus the size of the thing, the canon is smaller from what i can tell but am not sure if its fast enough for sport with f/4.5-5.6
 
The Sigma 150-500mm was suggested to me on the TP forums (tis newer than the 50-500mm I believe?). It's not a very fast lens though so some high ISOs might be needed!
 
Phal said:
The Sigma 150-500mm was suggested to me on the TP forums (tis newer than the 50-500mm I believe?). It's not a very fast lens though so some high ISOs might be needed!
Click to expand...

The sigma 50-500 is much better optically. Yes it is a slow lens but then that is the conundrum. You need reach in the 500mm range at a minimum, and preferably fast enough to take TCs, at long focal lengths you really want something fast, but then you need to remortgage your house and start a weight lifting regime at your gym.

You should consider buying a crop body, you will get much more effective reach with a canon 7D. Low pixel density FF cameras are not the best tool for wildlife unless you can afford the 600mm lenses, even then many wildlife pros will carry around a crop camera. Only the D800 has a viable pixel density.
 
I'm in a similar dilemma, Got a 5D want a longer lens for wildlife.. Although I always wanted a 7D I managed to get the 5D mk ll for a good price.

I have been looking at the 100 - 400 also..
 
snappyfish said:
I'm in a similar dilemma, Got a 5D want a longer lens for wildlife.. Although I always wanted a 7D I managed to get the 5D mk ll for a good price.

I have been looking at the 100 - 400 also..
Click to expand...

same here picked up my 5D for a cracking price, really looking at the 100-400L now as i had a Bigma with my old Nikon D80 and to be honest it was sold after 6 months due to lack of use
 
The 100-400L is oK but for wildlife you will probably find the 300mm f/4.0 + 1.4TC a more flexible option, or 400mm f/5.6 is good.
 
D.P. said:
The sigma 50-500 is much better optically. Yes it is a slow lens but then that is the conundrum. You need reach in the 500mm range at a minimum, and preferably fast enough to take TCs, at long focal lengths you really want something fast, but then you need to remortgage your house and start a weight lifting regime at your gym.

.
Click to expand...

http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2011/the...ootout-and-telephoto-faq’s-by-robert-o’toole/


Doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference there? Haven't used either myself though so can't really comment.
 
^^ General consensus and every photo I've ever seen with the 150-500 has been not /quite/ sharp enough, while the 50-500 has produced some absolute crackers. And linking Sigma's own blog is hardly a reliable source - Sigma will never say that the 150-500 isn't quite good enough, they'll only say that the 50-500 is that little bit better.
 
Last edited:
God forbid a photographer actually does an honest review >.>

Seems to be plenty of sharp shots from both lenses on Flickr but whatever, op can decide what he wants and buy it!
 
Phal said:
http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2011/the...ootout-and-telephoto-faq’s-by-robert-o’toole/


Doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference there? Haven't used either myself though so can't really comment.
Click to expand...

What are useless comparison, @f8 done by sigma themselves.

Kgs anti is right, every review I have ever read and vu proper example I have ever seen puts most of the sigma super tele zooms at not quite good enough wide open at the tele end, the 50-500 is just the exception which is just about good enough. Stopping down helps all of the, but yu don't want to be shooting 500mm at f/8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom