please can someone help with Choosing a Canon lens for me

[brogan]

hi Guys,

please can you guys give me some advise on below mentioned Canon lenses for me, I mainly shoot wildlife, but on occation portrature and around the house shots.

Im am looking at: 70-200 F4 L ( Non IS, and IS) , 100-300 F5.6 L.

with regard to the 70-200 - I am tending to the NON IS as it is not expensive, the IS is a few thousand more than I am looking to spend, and the 100-300 F5.6 L...I have seen and shot a bit with the 100-300 and it is in imaculate condition, no scratches on body and glass. looks like it has never been used. reason why i like the 100-300 is because it is a oldie tha not alot of people know about and it is a L lens. it is also black and the image quality is amazing!!!! its just a little slow focusing and its a 5.6...which is fine because the image qulaity more than makes up for the wait.

does anyone have proper hands on experiance with this lens/es that they can share with me?

[bomtek]

What can you get the 100-300 for cash wise? If its less than or equal to the 70-200 f4, grab it, otherwise take the f4 or better still, get the f2.8 if the budget allows. The low light ability is worth its weight in gold!

[Alvin]

depends what you can pick up the old 100-300 f5.6 L for?
you should pay R4000 say for a 70-200 f4 L used and R8500 say for the 70-200 f4 IS L used
so I would say if you can get the old 100-300 L for say up to R3000 - then it's worth looking at it (more than that I'd rather look at a new 70-200 f4 L instead)

[Chris F]

My first long lens was the 70-200 f4 non IS - very good value for money !!

If your budget does not allow for the f2,8 at this stage, rather go for the f4 non IS for now, as you WILL upgrade to the f2,8 in time to come.


dont know the 100-300, so cant comment on it.

[SimonDP]

70-200/4 non IS or IS is a good option, with a 1.4x TC also results in 280/5.6 with still very good IQ, good AF, and easy hand-hold capabilities. 100-300/5.6 is an old lens, seldom seen these days, if you can live with the slow AF and the price is right, give it a go.

[brogan]

Hi Guys,

thank you for the information given!

Bomtek, Alvin, the 100-300 is going for R3 800.00 and the gentleman selling it will not go lower than that. This is why I am in a spot of bother, weather to go for the old 100-300 of spend a bit more and buy the 70-200 F4 non IS, i have seen alot up fo sale and the cheapest I have found is around R4 500.00.

One thing I did not mention in my first post was that I own a 200m F2.8 MKI, (which is the sharpest lenses I have and currently own ) as well as a 300m f4 IS, and the Tamron 90m F2.8 macro (looking to maybe sell as the AF is slower on this lens than the 100-300!!!) I have never really looked at the 70-200 range as I saw myself always using the 70-200 at 200 (wildlife shots). Is it even worth while looking at the 70-200 range if i have the 200 f2.8 already? the main reason why I have been interested in the 70-200 F4 non IS is for 1. the price, and 2. the image quality is apparently amazing, the AF speed i know is fast as well.

[bomtek]

Hi Guys,

thank you for the information given!

Bomtek, Alvin, the 100-300 is going for R3 800.00 and the gentleman selling it will not go lower than that. This is why I am in a spot of bother, weather to go for the old 100-300 of spend a bit more and buy the 70-200 F4 non IS, i have seen alot up fo sale and the cheapest I have found is around R4 500.00.

One thing I did not mention in my first post was that I own a 200m F2.8 MKI, (which is the sharpest lenses I have and currently own ) as well as a 300m f4 IS, and the Tamron 90m F2.8 macro (looking to maybe sell as the AF is slower on this lens than the 100-300!!!) I have never really looked at the 70-200 range as I saw myself always using the 70-200 at 200 (wildlife shots). Is it even worth while looking at the 70-200 range if i have the 200 f2.8 already? the main reason why I have been interested in the 70-200 F4 non IS is for 1. the price, and 2. the image quality is apparently amazing, the AF speed i know is fast as well.

What can you get the 100-300 for cash wise? If its less than or equal to the 70-200 f4, grab it, otherwise take the f4 or better still, get the f2.8 if the budget allows. The low light ability is worth its weight in gold

[brogan]

What can you get the 100-300 for cash wise? If its less than or equal to the 70-200 f4, grab it, otherwise take the f4 or better still, get the f2.8 if the budget allows. The low light ability is worth its weight in gold

Is the image quality better with the 100-300 than the 70-200 F4? I figure this would be the only thing to make you say I must get it over the 70-200 as the 70-200 is quicker to focus and a stop faster.

[bomtek]

Is the image quality better with the 100-300 than the 70-200 F4? I figure this would be the only thing to make you say I must get it over the 70-200 as the 70-200 is quicker to focus and a stop faster.

IQ is about the same, I have only shot a few images with the 100-300 and at the time I owned the 70-200 f4 and they were about the same hence me saying, if you can get the 100-300 for cheaper than the 70-200 f4, take it, otherwise get the 70-200. For R3800 it sounds like a good deal if its in good condition.

It has an AFD motor which means its quite noisy and as you mentioned, slower to focus than newer USM motors but is still very sharp at 300 which is where most zooms start showing their weakness; if you can live that....

On the flipside, you shouldn't have too much trouble selling it if you dont like it.

[camerasaurusrex]

One thing I did not mention in my first post was that I own a 200m F2.8 MKI, (which is the sharpest lenses I have and currently own ) as well as a 300m f4 IS, and the Tamron 90m F2.8 macro.

OK now I'm confused

You own three very sharp primes. I doubt if you will be able to match the IQ of any of these lenses with a zoom. Even if it is an L zoom.

[MorSny]

OK now I'm confused

You own three very sharp primes. I doubt if you will be able to match the IQ of any of these lenses with a zoom. Even if it is an L zoom.

Yes. Why not just get a 50mm f1.4?

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

Yes. Why not just get a 50mm f1.4?

because it's ridiculously soft?

If you want IQ, the the 70-200 f/4 L IS is the one to go for, but that jumps up quite a bit in price, next sharpest in that range will be the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS mkII (which is, i asume, quite a bit out of your planned budget)

[Grant Atkinson]

Brogan, if you already have a Canon 300f4 L IS, why would you want an old zoom that maxes out at the same focal length and one stop slower? :-) That doesn't make sense to me. I would much rather get any of the 70-200f4 lenses and use the two for your wildlife shooting. For a long time I took all my wildlife images with the non-IS 70-200f4L and the 300f4L IS that you already have. They make a great combination, lightweight, fast to focus (especially the 70-200f4L), great image quality and decent construction. That will leave you with a slight gap in focal lengths, but it isnt usually that big a deal.
With those two lenses you will have most things covered.
cheers
Grant

[Alvin]

Brogan
More than R3k for an old 100-300 L is just not smart
And raises a valid question - you already got 300 f4 and 200 f2.8 L primes, so realy a 70-200 L f4 for versatility at R4k makes much more sense. Or even look for a 85 f1.8 prime to go with the 200 and 300 primes instead.

[Henk Coetzee]

Listening to what you are looking at, here goes. Bear in mind that I own have no experience with Canon cameras and lenses and am going entirely on what I read in forums like this (IOW, I am a well-informed expert ).

From the sound of things you have three good primes and are used to using them. The Tamron 90 f2.8 is a very well regarded lens. Don't expect it to focus fast. It's a macro. It wasn't designed to focus fast. You have a good 200 and 300 and seem to have no complaints about them.

Do you really want a 70-200 as well and is 70 short enough for what you want to do?
If this were my dilemma, seeing what Canon has to offer, I would go out and buy a 50mm 1.8 and use the change to enjoy photography. For R3.8k you could get a 50 f1.8, a 28 f2.8 and one of these. The 50 would be great for portraits where the 90 is too long and 28 is a nice "around the house" focal length.

[Alvin]

For R3.8k you could get a 50 f1.8, a 28 f2.8 and one of these.

I like your thinking

[MorSny]

because it's ridiculously soft?

If you want IQ, the the 70-200 f/4 L IS is the one to go for, but that jumps up quite a bit in price, next sharpest in that range will be the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS mkII (which is, i asume, quite a bit out of your planned budget)

He has a 200 f2.8, getting a zoom that ends @ 200 and slower just does not make sense, not to me anyway. What I think he really needs is a 15-85mm but that is out of budget. Hence my suggestion.

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

He has a 200 f2.8, getting a zoom that ends @ 200 and slower just does not make sense, not to me anyway. What I think he really needs is a 15-85mm but that is out of budget. Hence my suggestion.

Well, it really depends on the use case. Also, the 70-200 gives you access to two of the most used portrait focal lengths for did and FoV, which is 80mm and 135mm and seeing that it's right in the middle of the zoom range, it's pretty sharp. Comparable to the fixed focal lengths he already owns.

Just depends on the use case. What is more important? IQ or range or max focal length? In which case a decent 400 f/5.6 L would be an even better solution (except that they are all outside the budget )

[bomtek]

He has a 200 f2.8, getting a zoom that ends @ 200 and slower just does not make sense, not to me anyway. What I think he really needs is a 15-85mm but that is out of budget. Hence my suggestion.

not everything is about primes! sometimes we want the versatility of a zoom and it doesnt get much better than the 70-200 range.

[brogan]

Hi guys,

Thank you all of your valid answers to my question. Yes getting a zoom that zooms to 300 where I already have a 300 L does not make sense. Neither does getting a zoom that zooms to 200 if I have a 200 L. this is my problem I am not interested in portraiture (hence the reason why I have a 20-35 Tokina that cost me R350 ) . In any case my father has the 15-85 if I need to use it.

One of the problems I found with using the 300 L while in the car in Kruger was, if the bird flying was to close, I lost the shot as I only got at most the body and a bit of a wing in, and no I won’t be able to just take a step back to properly frame my subjectJ. For this reason I am tending towards the 100-300. But I think it is just a bit too much to ask at R 3 800.00, as some of you have also pointed out.

PS: I will change my mind if anyone is selling a 80-200, I will take that in a heartbeat