Zoom lens for Canon

[MN Shutterbug]

If I was to get a Canon DSLR, what would you people recommend for a decent lens of at least 400mm and under $1000? I found a Tamron 200-500 for $813. Most reviews were good, but there is always one review that makes a person a little nervous.

[Steve Foss]

XT, you can't buy a new Canon zoom to 400mm for $1,000 or less. The Canon 400 f5.6L is a great sharp lens for between $1,000 and $1,100 new, but no zoom. The excellent Canon 100-400L is about $1,400. I'd avoid trying the used market on hsolist because, unless you know exactly what you're doing and exactly what you're getting, you could be asking for big trouble. Places with used lenses like B&H are better options.

The Tamron you mentioned is good, but so is the Sigma 50-500 (the so-called Bigma), and you can get the Bigma in your price range, too. While the Bigma isn't as sharp as the aforementioned Canon lenses, it and the Tamron have about equal sharpness, and the Bigma has a better rep, so that would be my recommendation within your price range. I've played around with clients' Tamron 200-500 and Sigma 50-500 lenses, though I've never owned either. When clients want to get into serious nature photography but don't have the jing to go with the top Canon zoom (100-400), I always recommend the Bigma.

You're going to need a sturdy tripod, however, regardless of which you choose.

Another option for about $1,400 is the Canon 300 f4L image stabilizer coupled with the Canon 1.4 teleconverter. More flexibility than the Canon 400 f5.6L (though less than the 100-400) and equal in sharpness.

[finnbay]

Steve does most of his work with the Canon 100-400. To be honest with you, he can make that thing do just about anything including singing an aria from Swan Lake. I know it's a little more than you'd like to spend, but it would be difficult to be happy with a step up with anything less.

[Dbl]

I hate to say it X but this is one of those times you might be better off spending a bit more dough. The problem is, I know I have been down this road, you buy what you can under your budget and 6 months later you are unhappy with the results and you dump the lens and end up with the one you should have bought in the first place! It just ends up costing you more. You have seen the discussions over the past few years about people seeking advice on this subject, the advice rarely changes, spend a bit more on quality glass and be happy right up front. I reduces the frustration level when you get your camera and can't get the results you hoped for.

I know three folks that had the Tamron 200-500 and each one of them did not have them 3 months. I have no first hand experience with it but....

I had the 100-400 for about 4 months and was never able to get sharp shots from it that satisfied me. Just my copy I think, I bought it used. That lens is a love-hate kind of lens. Spend some time on a few photo forums and I think you will find more than a few discussions from people that either passionately love it or that think it is one of Canon's softest. I personally think it comes down to a good copy. Steve is proof that good ones do exist, and I have seen many that did produce good photos. I also think that calibration may cure many of the soft copies. I ended up selling mine not only because it was soft, but I also had the need for faster glass, it did not work well for my intended use.

Honestly if you spend some time looking you should be able to buy a used 100-400 for around $1100, just about your range. New will run you another $300. Tough choices. Unless you are going the prime route or the low cost zoom route you don't have a ton to pick from. Steve mentioned the Sigma 50-500 "Bigma" and that lens is a beast. I handhold a 300/2.8 for hours on end and I would not think of spending much over a few minutes without a tripod or mono pod with the Bigma. It also needs to be stopped down and not used all the way on the long end to get sharp results.

I have had bad experiences with Sigma quality control so I hesitate to recommend any Sigma lens, but one to consider is the 100-300/f4. I love the IQ and colors you can get but only when you get it to focus. I went through three Sigma 100-300/f4's and finally gave up getting a copy that did not front or back focus. Nice lens if you manually focused it, beautiful photos. You can pick one of them up for around $800-$900 new. You can stack a Tamron 1.4TC for around $100 and get good results with this lens. Just make sure you can shoot it with your camera and check the focus. My copies were in Pentax mount, the Canon and Nikon mounts are supposed to be a bit more consistent.

These are from the Sigma 100-300/f4 with 1.4TC.

There are a few thoughts for you, lens choices are one of the hardest decisions to make after you get your camera. Especially when you are just getting a collection started.

[Steve Foss]

Quote:

---

Steve is proof that good ones (Canon 100-400L IS) do exist

---

I prefer to think that Steve is proof that good photographers are more important than good equipment. Not picking on Dan here at all, but I have shot four different copies of the 100-400 (my own and those of clients) and all performed well.

I started with a $150 "junky" 70-300 Tamron macro, and I'm still selling nature images I shot with that lens. Four of the images in the Grand Superior Lodge permanent show were captured with that lens, and they sell as well as any of the rest captured with Canon's best L glass.

My advice, as always, is buy the best body/lenses you can afford and learn how to be a photographer before you worry too much about your equipment. The old saw that there is more good photography equipment out there than there are good photographers is as true now as it was 10 years ago.

Just my two cents worth.

[Dbl]

And not picking on Steve but my advice is for X-tackleman who already has photographic experience. He is asking for "a decent lens less than $1,000", not a $150 lens. His standards on what he may want my be different than someone just starting out. I offered my experiences with the above lenses in my post.

I will stand by MY experience with the 100-400, I can name three people I know who got rid of the 100-400, I also can name three others who are more than happy with it. The reason I said test drive before buying which is valid logic for any lens before purchase. Would I hesitate to buy another one... no, not if it fit my needs. I would shoot before buying. Just another opinion, which after all is why we ask these questions.

[Paul]

I own a 70-300 Sigma Zoom. It is the biggest peice of Garbage out on the market. The only time I have ever gotten images that are good with mine is when I am shooting at 100 iso and 1/2000 sec shutter speed. I have have the bottom of the line lense though. I bought it a few years back as part of a 2 lense set becaause I needed a 28-80 for a 35mm. I am now looking to add a 100-300 is usm to my collection. I really didn't need the sigma at the time but it was almost free with the 2 lense set. I have found that most of the time I am unhappy with those shots.

[finnbay]

Part of my reply was meant in the same light as Dbl. X has done a fair amount of photography and I feel he wants to step up his game a bit. Steve's point is well taken the the photographer is the biggest part of the equation (I'm learning that over and over again every time I do a shoot). All that being said, if X feels it's time to get serious, then IMO he should buy some glass that he can use for a long time and get comfortable with. Most blogs will tell you to plan ahead for your glass because camera bodies come and go, but glass will last for a long time.

I'm a good example of the importance of technique. I've been fortunate enough to be able to buy good equipment. I still take more than my share of crappy photos. X and jonny, as well as many others have done some incredible stuff with point and shoots. I have been doing sports photography for over four years and am good enough at that to make a fair amount of change to buy nice stuff with. As to outdoor photography, I've got a long ways to go. I started working on the songbird close-ups two months ago, and am getting better. Soon I'll be focusing my attention on big game. I expect there will be quite a learning curve as well. This is a great forum because the FMer's give good, valid critiques that actually help. Not all forums are like that. But to go the final step (if you've worked on technique)good equipment will make a difference. I think X is at a point where he wants that. Good luck!

[MN Shutterbug]

How about the Canon EF 300 f4L/USM with IS? Then add a 1.4 conversion lens.

[Steve Foss]

Great advice, everybody. A wide variety of experience makes for variety in advice, and that only helps the person seeking advice. I always like to make sure that, in the middle of all the equipment talk that needs to go on as photographers improve their gear, the most important thing — the eye, mind and heart of the photographer — don't get forgotten. I also don't mean to recommend anyone buy poorer quality gear when they can afford better. No feather ruffling meant. After re-reading my reply to Dan's post, I see it could easily have been taken somewhat badly. Sorry, Dan.

X, I'd mentioned the possibility of the Canon 300 f4L IS and 1.4 TC at the end of a previous post in this thread. It's an excellent combo for about the same money as the 100-400. Not as flexible as the zoom, but with the removal/addition of the TC you do have some flexibility.

With the TC off, the 300 will be sharper than the 100-400 when shot at wide open aperture. With the TC on, they will have comparable image quality. You'll also have an extra stop of aperture at 300mm, and that can come in handy. The 300 also has the newest version of IS (the 100-400 has an older, slightly less effective, version). I've read on forums that the 300 will focus a bit faster than the 100-400 on the 30D, but I do not own that particular version of the 300 (used a borrowed copy once and liked it). I tend not to trust what I read about equipment on most forums (I've had excellent results with a fair range of equipment that regularly gets bashed), so I can't say if the focus is faster or not.

The only real weakness of the 100-400L IS is its slow aperture. The earliest versions of the lens were hit or miss with quality, and you were as likely to get a bad copy as a good one. That's changed now, and a person can buy that lens with confidence.

Anyway, if you're shooting any sports, as Dan and Ken will tell you, that max aperture of f5.6 is only suitable for outdoor sports, and on dark days, rapidly moving subjects like sports and certain bird or wildlife situations put the lens at a disadvantage compared with f4. I've had a lot of success with the 100-400 on darker days outside in those situations (a monopod helps a lot), but have to work harder at it than I would with larger apertures.

I, like you, was looking for the best combination of quality, flexibility and price, and settled on the 100-400 for all those reasons. If I really needed faster lenses for my business (particularly if my business was sports, which I don't shoot anymore), I'd have to pony up and pay the big bucks for the big apertures.

I'm also a Canon guy when it comes to lenses. I've shot some of the others but just can't bring myself to buy them. Whichever Canon L telephoto you buy, you will be satisfied, I'm sure. And IS can be a bit of a crutch that prevents a person from developing a rock-solid technique, so I'd encourage you to keep working to hone your steadying techniques. I know it's easy for me to get lazy and depend too much on the IS.

I always recommend against buying used unless you know the photographer and the piece of equipment in question and can try it out on a shoot before buying. Too many hsolist horror stories about equipment that's supposed to be "like new in box."

Well, that's my thinking in a nutshell. Nutshell? Right. I DO tend to run on at the keyboard. Dan and Ken, what are your thoughts on the 300/1.4 combo?

[finnbay]

For outdoor day sports and wildlife, I think it would be great except there are times when 100 and 200 would be what you would want to use. When I shoot sports I have two bodies ready - one with a 300 and the other with a 70-200. As for indoor sports, even the f4 is limiting with most high school venues that I have to shoot in. I know you used a strobe with yours when you had to be inside and it worked well for you. Don't know how usable that would be with the 300.

[Steve Foss]

I've had good luck shooting indoor action sports and other types of images with the Canon 430EX flash on the 20D/30D and 100-400. In those cases, I ramped iso to 3200 so the flash had less work to do. Using flash in those situations can actually deliver better color saturation than no-flash shooting, and I noticed my images with flash appeared less grainy than without, especially at 3200.

But, of course, the big downside is that if you have a dark room/gym and have to flash it, the flash is obivious and not at all lifelike. And flash reflects badly off equipment/jerseys, particularly hockey. Thus, indoor sports shooters' obsession with f2.8 and wider.

[finnbay]

Dan,

Great shots! When I check the forum at school, the filter many times won't let open the photos depending on where they're coming from. Got to see them tonight at home for the first time. The redwing is superb!

[MARINERMAGNUM]

X, are you going to go wander around the woods and carry it? if so the 100-400 would be about as stout as I would go. More flex than a prime also. I lugged my bud's 200mm 1.8 around for awhile-no thanks!

I've had a Canon 70-300 IS that was an exceptional lens. My last combo would be right up your alley- a 70-200 F4L IS and a 1.4x TC. It's light,better resolution than most primes,remove the TC and it's fairly fast and the colors really POP.

This was the 70-300

This was the 70-200F4L IS