In a perfect world, which of these telephotos would be yours?

Robinivich

I'm trying to decide which lens to save up for, and all these are possibilities. Try not to think budget but in terms of general purpose telephoto. I've got a 70-300, but for the most part this (plus maybe a teleconverter) would have to be my only telephoto zoom. I don't mind size, or weight, but I want fast focusing and practical for some wildlife. Ability to take a converter well is a real bonus.

LiquidAir

Robinivich wrote:

I'm trying to decide which lens to save up for, and all these are possibilities. Try not to think budget but in terms of general purpose telephoto. I've got a 70-300, but for the most part this (plus maybe a teleconverter) would have to be my only telephoto zoom. I don't mind size, or weight, but I want fast focusing and practical for some wildlife. Ability to take a converter well is a real bonus.

I have been over this terrain a few times for myself. While it is not the lens I dream of, the 100-400 is currently my top choice in this space because it has IS and it packs up reasonably small (not an issue for you, but it is for me). There are other lenses on your list which are optically superior, but personally I would get the most use out of the 100-400.

ziggy53

Robinivich wrote:

... I want fast focusing and practical for some wildlife. Ability to take a converter well is a real bonus.

It appears that you shoot Canon.

For larger wildlife, especially wildlife that you can get close to, the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L IS USM is very viable. It can take a 1.4x teleconverter and maintain pretty good quality. The f2.8 allows it to work in less than perfect light.

The EF 100-400mm, f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM is a classic daylight zoom for wildlife. Not perfect but it makes up for the minor imperfections in versatility. When you don't know what you might see, it's a pretty safe bet. I don't think the Canon teleconverters work with it, but most of the time you wouldn't need them.

The EF 400mm, f/5.6L USM is a great lightweight telephoto with very high quality in a very packable form factor. It would work pretty well in a kit with the 70-200mm, f2.8L and the 1.4x converter.

For birds and other animals you might not see up close (or want to see up close) the EF 500mm, f/4.0L IS USM is an amazing performer that takes some time to get used to and to get full value. If you can afford it, it makes a great addition for the really long stuff. It will also take Canon teleconverters.

There are quite a few other lenses to consider but these are the ones I consider best for general widlife applications.

Richard

ziggy53 wrote:

The EF 100-400mm, f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM is a classic daylight zoom for wildlife. Not perfect but it makes up for the minor imperfections in versatility. When you don't know what you might see, it's a pretty safe bet. I don't think the Canon teleconverters work with it, but most of the time you wouldn't need them.

According to Canon, both the EF 1.4x II and the 2.0x II will work. Dosen't say how well, though I have heard that at least the 1.4x is OK. I have been lusting after the 100-400 for a while, but just can't afford it yet.

Photoskipper

I am looking for 500mmF4 for bird photos
The current 2X with 70-200 F2.8 IS give me reasonable telephoto but found it a bit slow in AF. Anything beyond 50 meters are not that great. The picture in good lights and flash within 30 meters are great. The IS work well with 2X and manage to take the picture handheld with the 580EXII flash.

Hope the 500 mm F4 can deliver the picture I want. A 1.4x may give me more room for longer distance.

Robinivich

Interesting replies and results so far! I haven't included any "Super" telephotos in the poll, ie 200f2 300f2.8 400f2.8... because these are lenses I could only justify after winning the lottery... Something the price of the 100-400 is right at the limits of what I could save up for. I suppose I should have included a 70-200 + 300 or 400 prime option, since these and the 100-400 are my two main leanings, but I wouldn't be able to have both at once, not at least for a while, thus "if you could only have one..."

Given that I have a 70-300 that has reasonable quality out to 200, which would be your first choice if you were getting a combo? the short zoom or long prime? Would f4/f2.8 and USM be enough to get the 70-200 first, or would you go for the longer lens?

I find it interesting that the sigmas haven't got all that many votes, I guess my phrasing it "perfect world" had people looking at white lenses...

Art Scott

Buddha of Photography Equipment

ziggy53 wrote:

It appears that you shoot Canon.

For larger wildlife, especially wildlife that you can get close to, the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L IS USM is very viable. It can take a 1.4x teleconverter and maintain pretty good quality. The f2.8 allows it to work in less than perfect light.

The EF 100-400mm, f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM is a classic daylight zoom for wildlife. Not perfect but it makes up for the minor imperfections in versatility. When you don't know what you might see, it's a pretty safe bet. I don't think the Canon teleconverters work with it, but most of the time you wouldn't need them.

The EF 400mm, f/5.6L USM is a great lightweight telephoto with very high quality in a very packable form factor. It would work pretty well in a kit with the 70-200mm, f2.8L and the 1.4x converter.

For birds and other animals you might not see up close (or want to see up close) the EF 500mm, f/4.0L IS USM is an amazing performer that takes some time to get used to and to get full value. If you can afford it, it makes a great addition for the really long stuff. It will also take Canon teleconverters.

There are quite a few other lenses to consider but these are the ones I consider best for general widlife applications.

LISTEN TO ZIGGY53.......he is almost a god....very ENLIGHTENED...so you could ascertain he is a BUDDHA of photography equiptment thumb:D

ziggy53

Art Scott wrote:

LISTEN TO ZIGGY53.......he is almost a god....very ENLIGHTENED...so you could ascertain he is a BUDDHA of photography equiptment thumb:D

While I appreciate the comment, I would beg to differ (except for the growing "physical" resemblance to the "Hotei" form of "Buddharupa".)

(I had to look this up but the "happy" and rounded manifestation of Buddha, usually seen in a statue known as a "Buddharupa", are commonly called "Hotei", "Budai" or "Putai". I learn something new everyday.)

ziggy53

Robinivich wrote:

Interesting replies and results so far! I haven't included any "Super" telephotos in the poll, ie 200f2 300f2.8 400f2.8... because these are lenses I could only justify after winning the lottery... Something the price of the 100-400 is right at the limits of what I could save up for. I suppose I should have included a 70-200 + 300 or 400 prime option, since these and the 100-400 are my two main leanings, but I wouldn't be able to have both at once, not at least for a while, thus "if you could only have one..."

Given that I have a 70-300 that has reasonable quality out to 200, which would be your first choice if you were getting a combo? the short zoom or long prime? Would f4/f2.8 and USM be enough to get the 70-200 first, or would you go for the longer lens?

I find it interesting that the sigmas haven't got all that many votes, I guess my phrasing it "perfect world" had people looking at white lenses...

In your situation, with the 70-300mm already in your possesion, I suppose the lens I would most recommend is the EF 400mm, f5.6L, and then later on sell the 70-300 and get the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L and 1.4x teleconverter. The extra reach is what you need now and the 400mm, f5.6L can get you there with very high quality.

If you really need the convenience of a single lens, the EF 100-400mm, f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM is pretty good stuff for the price.

I have a copy of the Sigma AF 50-500mm, f4-f6.3 EX APO RF HSM and I hesitate to recommend it when compared to the other lenses. It is very convenient, but heavy. Best quality is at the extremes, but the 500mm is still a bit soft compared to anything I have in the Canon "L" line. (It's even soft compared to a very old Vivitar 500mm, f6.3 manual focus lens, but that lens is very sharp.)

Used under ideal circumstances, with plenty of strong light and fairly hard shadows, it's possible to coax pretty good images from it. I was impressed in how well it worked to maintain focus at 500mm on a sea gull sequence with the Canon 40D body.

It's just not a "first choice" recommendation.

Robinivich

ziggy53 wrote:

In your situation, with the 70-300mm already in your possesion, I suppose the lens I would most recommend is the EF 400mm, f5.6L, and then later on sell the 70-300 and get the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L and 1.4x teleconverter. The extra reach is what you need now and the 400mm, f5.6L can get you there with very high quality.

If you really need the convenience of a single lens, the EF 100-400mm, f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM is pretty good stuff for the price.

I have a copy of the Sigma AF 50-500mm, f4-f6.3 EX APO RF HSM and I hesitate to recommend it when compared to the other lenses. It is very convenient, but heavy. Best quality is at the extremes, but the 500mm is still a bit soft compared to anything I have in the Canon "L" line. (It's even soft compared to a very old Vivitar 500mm, f6.3 manual focus lens, but that lens is very sharp.)

Used under ideal circumstances, with plenty of strong light and fairly hard shadows, it's possible to coax pretty good images from it. I was impressed in how well it worked to maintain focus at 500mm on a sea gull sequence with the Canon 40D body.

It's just not a "first choice" recommendation.

Thanks! That's some very clear, very valuable advice, and happily confirms some of my own thoughts.