Lens advice please (Canon)
 

I'm looking for one of the L series of Canons, but am unsure about which would be the best.

I'd thought about the 100/400, but was worried it might be a little heavy.

Looked in to the 70 - 200 with thoughts of using with a 1.4 TC, but was quite surprised at the weight of the 70 - 200, which is even heavier than the 100/400!

Any thoughts please? I've a Canon 350D by the way and mainly take Wildlife photography.

Sue

Which lens is a very personal decision. The 100-400mm is good - but for an "L" it isn't great. An excellent lens is the 300mm f/4 L IS - no zoom but with wildlife your lenses never seem to be long enough anyway!

You can use the 1.4x teleconverter with the 300mm with very good results. Teleconverters don't work as well on zoom lenses.

If you can find a source, I strongly recommend renting a lens for a week or more to see if it fills your needs. A Canon "L" series lens holds its value very well - if you need to switch to something else you can always sell for 85-90% of your purchase price. Not so with the alternative brands.

I'd go along with Jim.

L lens are heavy compared to cheaper lens because of the wieght of the better quaility glass and stronger build. But you get used to the weight.

The 400mm f5.6 is a good sharp (fairly light) lens favoured by many.

The 100-400 is versatile but not the best.

I have the 300mm f4 and use it with a 1.4 TC. Putting the TC on and off effectively gives you a bit of zoom range. Also the minimum focus distance of 1.5m is useful for getting close to subject.

I think it is a good general purpose wildlife lens. As Jim says if your subject is always on the horizon then a lens never seems to be long enough.

The 70-200 f4 is cheap and light weight as well. If your subject is large and close this maybe a good option.

The trouble is when folk say wildlife it cover a multitude of sins. So how big is your subject ?

Small Insects, Butterflies, small birds, large birds, distant birds or large Mamals.

Depends if you want a zoom - if not I would go for something like the 400mm f5.6 prime, pin sharp and works well with the 1.4tc (but not AF unless you tape the pins or use a cheap Kenko). I find with my zoom that I have it on full zoom for 99% of the time when shooting birds - so why not get a 400 prime in the first place (it is lighter, sharper and cheaper).

The 100-400 weighs 1.38kg, the 400 1.25kg. Not a huge difference, but I think you'd find it noticable, and though I've never used one I've seen far too many great shots taken with this lens to think it's anything less than excellent. No IS is the big drawback, but if you can live with that it would make a good choice.

I can't imagine birding with anything less than a 400mm lens. Even 400 isn't really enough a lot of the time, but ignoring the vastly higher cost for the moment, a 500 weighs more than twice as much, and is decidedly difficult to handle.

I'm not a big man by any means, but I don't find the 100-400 difficult to lug around. You do get used to heavy gear after a while. Already, I'm starting to feel more at home with the monster 500 (is it habituation? Or actual muscle growth? A little of both I think), and now the 100-400 feels like a little toy lens. (Which is great!) My point here is that I think you would soon grow used to either of the 400s.

From what I've seen of them I'd go for the 400 f5.6 prime over the 100-400 IS every time. If you have a look you'll see that the prime is much sharper, it's also a smaller lens and feels great to use (your camera won't feel too lens heavy). The 400 f5.6 is very fast focusing and (I've been told) will still focus fast with a (taped) 1.4x tc in place.

I have had the 400mm f5.6 prime for just over a week now and it is very fast focusing (not yet tried it with my 1.4x tc). Went our for my first long walk with the lens today and I agree with postcardcv- it does not feel heavy and is great to use on the 350D.

I second Roy's comment.I have both the 400F5.6 and the 100-400 .Since I acquired the 400 prime ,I have not used the latter.I am not the steadiest of people,but have not found the non IS a problem as the lens is so light and fast.But I have found that when focussing the single red dot(light) must be on the subject for accurate AF.
If yo need even extra length why not consider the Tamron 70-500 zoom.I think that is the one.I have seen some superb shots taken with this lens by "DOC" on BF.It is a very reasonable price and not too heavy.

Hello everyone,

Thank you ALL so very much indeed for your very helpful replies.

Well, I think from all your comments that I've now discarded the 70 - 200, thanks.

Jim & Rob - I've already had a 300mm f/4 L IS (great with the 1.4 TC too) which stopped focusing completely after just 6 weeks!
Although, I was very pleased with it, I'm now wondering if maybe I'm being 'told' something about moving on, perhaps...

Roy, Tannin & Peter - I think I'm getting closer to feeling that the 400mm f5.6 prime might just be the one, IF I can get one!!!
I'm a little concerned about it being a non IS, but with the comments from everyone, may just be able to grow with it. I always thought a 300 was going to be too heavy, but had mastered that well....by the time it went kaput!!! Still, it's true, if all else fails and I just can't get used to it,then as you all point out - I could sell it on for the other with IS.

By the way Rob - Wildlife for me is far more in the way of Birds, but everything else that I come across too, but I do see your point.

I've tried to get one on hire Roy, but only get one answer! WExpress haven't got any and aren't expecting a replacement for the 300 for "some time" and blame it on to Canon, but who knows!

Christine - I can't find the Tamron 70 - 500 on WE site, do you mean 200 - 500? However, I really appreciate you points on the (Canon 400) non IS from a female angle

Thanks again everyone, I've really appreciated all your help and advice and thanks for the test run results on yours today Roy. I'll be back and tell you what I got....when I can get it!

Many thanks again,

Sue.

I know that this lens has been in short supply - if you're struggling to find one try my local camera shop (01362 693 506), they had it in stock a few days ago so it might still be there.

Wasn't there a guy on BF (from Scotland??) who said he'd just received a batch (10+?) of the 400/5.6.

cheers,
Andy

Sure was, thats where I got mine. His name is Ian Kerr (KERSO). Price is around £740 inc P&P.

Hi Peter and thank you so much for that very useful information.

I've just one problem that I've thought about overnight (isn't there always ONE!!) How would I get on with in-flight shots? It wouldn't work out would it? I love the challenge of Birds in flight, but what to do if that IS the case?? I'll be so grateful for any/all information.

Thanks so much for getting back to me again so very quickly and I'll certainly hang on to that number, thanks.

Perplexed, Sue.

Hi Andy & Roy,

So sorry I didn't mean to snub you, just didn't realise there was another page started yet.

Funnily enough I'd been in touch with Ian, but I thought he only had the 300's and 100/400's. I didn't realise he could get more. :confused:

How about the in-flight problem (that I see anyway), any advice on that one please. Thanks to you both for getting back again too, so much appreciated.

Sue

The 400mm f5.6 prime has the reputation of being the best Canon lens available for flight shots because of the weight (or lack of it) and the quickness of the AF.

Brilliant Roy! So, am I right in thinking that both the flying shots and lack of IS can be overcome by the AF? If so, then I'm positive that's the one I'll have. Thank you so very much for getting back to me tonight, I so appreciate your help yet again.

Sue.

Hi Sue, I am not saying that the lack of IS is overcome by the AF - I have never used IS so would not know. All I am saying is that many good bird photographer use the 400 5.6 prime for flight shots. I have read that a lot of photographers dream lens would be the 400 prime with IS but I guess the price of such a lens would become prohibited for most users.

No, it's ok Roy, neither did I mean that totally, just that it might help with it being a 'faster' AF. However, with my 300 having had the IS I was very concerned about going backwards and not having it, especially with a heavier lens. Having read Christine's post it looks as though the AF at least compensates a bit for it though, which means SO much to me - though a 400 with IS would be wonderful - but astronomical. :eek:

The main thing I was so very pleased about with what you said yesterday though was the flying shots as I find them such a challenge and would hate to have real problems.

I know it's a case of wait and see as what works for one doesn't always do so for another, but... If I do get it though Roy and it really doesn't work out for me then I could always switch further down the line, best way to view it to my mind! Very many thanks for getting back again and for all your help Roy, much appreciated.

Sue

Hi Sue
I agree with everyone here who says the 400 prime is the best lens to use. I have used several over the last year or so and think this lens is worth every penny. Not having IS is not important as this lens is so sharp you wouldnt notice not having IS. This lens was built for flight shots. Its very fast focsuing, a real dream. here is a photo i took with it just today handheld.

I have a canon 300mm IS L-USM and i sometime use with it a 1.4 extender on it and the results are superb wether with out the 1.4 or with it,no differance at all ! superb and even for macro shots which i have used for some frog shots,the 70-200 mm you mentioned would be great for sport shots or animal shots at the Zoo !i was thinking of getting one once but at the moment i am happy with what i have mentioned,and i did think of getting the canon 200nn which i could use my extender on,i must admit i am a prime fan !i have a canon 100 to 300 mm f5.6 zoom and hardly us it,you have to say to yourself how much use would i get out of the 70-200 zoom lens then make your mind up !

Hi Anthony,

Thank you so much for all your thoughts on the 70 - 200 which I will seriously consider for one day, though at present, believe it or not, I'm still with a Fuji Finepix S5000 for all my macro shots as it's got such a great macro mode! Though I know well that there are SO much better ones about - one day!

Re the 300 (with or without the 1.4) I do realise just how good they both are, but after having the one that failed, it's made me too wary. I have done as you've advised though and thought "how much use would I get from the 400 lens then made my mind up"!! I've decided definately on the 400f 5.6, but thanks so much for the valuable advice Anthony, much appreciated indeed.

Sue

Thank You!!
 

Hi Peter,

Thank you so very much indeed for giving me the number of your shop, I've no idea what the chap said it was called (I was too flustered!) but he was so good and so I ordered it late yesterday and it will be HERE on Monday!! I'm thrilled to bits and can't wait to try it. Again Peter, thanks so much for all the advice and the contact for which I'm so very grateful.

Sue

Thank you to you ALL for helping me out so very much indeed with your advice over the lenses.

As you may have seen from my reply to Peter, I've gone ahead and ordered the EF 400f 5.6 Prime and, all being well, it should be with me on Monday!

After coming back to the board to get the reassurance from your posts, then seeing Annette's results - I know I've done the right thing and am delighted.

Thanks so much EVERYONE I can't thank you all enough! I'll let you know how I get on, you can bank on that for sure!

Best wishes, Sue

Glad to be of help - it's just a small local camera shop, but they stock a great range of lenses (I guess they do a lot of mail order), always very helpful.

Hope you enjoy your new lens, I'm sure you will.

You have made a good choice,Sue,this is a terrific lens ,esp for the price.It does not have IS,but because of its light weight that is not really a problem,and it is much sharper and brighter than a Sigma 300 F2 I tried.
Good luck and happy shooting Sue.Look forward to seeing your images.

Thanks for getting bck to me Christine, I do feel so very happy about it now and shan't be sleeping much tomorrow night for sure! Don't worry Christine, I'll let you know when an image taken with it goes on, shan't be able to stop myself!! Thanks again for your help and advice.

Sue

Brilliant
 

Hello everyone,

Well, it's here and so far I'm very pleased with it indeed, though on tenter hooks with it for most of the day, a bit like holding a baby at times!

You were right with the weight and AF though, no problem with either after having got used to the 300mm. I'll have to work on the flight shots a bit, nothing like your Cormorant Annette! I did get some beautiful Robins, a Nuthatch, WW's, Chiffchaff and Ducks and can't get any on here as I'm having problems so far, yet manage ok on BF. Any difference that I'm unsure of I'd be pleased to hear about?

I'll put a couple on the gallery in a minute. One beauty of a Duck I did get was a Yellow-billed Duck or African Yellow Bill (anus undulata), an obvious escape, but superb anyway.

Thanks again everyone.