Should I Just Suck It Up n Get D 70-200 F/4?????

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Aw, well, for a while I've been debating which 300mm lens to get... Tamron 28-300mm, Sigma 70-300 APO, Canon 100-300 USM, Canon 75-300mm IS, ect, ect, ect.....

Well, I've been hearing from so many people that these lenses are crap for fast action sports photography, and are soft, especially at high focal lengths like the 300mm range. So, then it's useless.... or am I wrong??

Right now I'm tempted to forget about the 300mm length, and shoot for the 70-200mm f/4 instead. I don't have enough cash for a 1.4x T-con yet so I'd be stuck with 200mm max trying to shoot tiny birds in trees, and other wild life at zoo's and stuff. Would it be enough for a few months? Is the extra 100mm reach really needed?

Is this lens really worth it? Far better quality than any of the lenses listed above and all that stuff? I'm just having a really hard time making up my mind........

[rssfhs]

Shooting wildlife, you can never have a long enough lens. Get the 70-200mm f/4 now for normal photos and start saving your $ for a 400mm or longer and 1.4x T-con for your bird photos. Life is long, you can wait a few months.

[blue_max]

To give you an indication of size, this is taken from about 40ft, using a 100-300mm lens at 300mm.

I would think that you would have to be quite stealthy to get much physically closer and 300mm would be still much too small. You can crop, but there are not enough pixels there to make a good job.

Hope this helps.

Graham

[condyk]

Don't even think 200mm and an ex will be suitable for wild birds and animals ... other than for Elephants and at the Zoo you will experience great frustration! Your 300mm cheaper zooms will only please if you don't want the sharpest and most dynamic images ... even then you need a minimum 400mm to shoot little tweets, so use will be limited and equally frustrating.

It's a bum position to be in, but the 70-200 F4 will suit for lots of stuff and be a great long term keeper to build a lens collection around. It's still not much use in woodland!

[CyberDyneSystems]

For quality reasons,. I'd look at the 70-200mm f/4,. and if longer is required,. look at either the 300mm f/4L IS, 400mm f/5.6L or the 100-400mmL IS....

So half you question is answered.. don't get the 75-300mm ;)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yup, guess I'll be getting the 70-200mm then! That's what I thought, that the 300mm still wouldn't be enough. Thanks guys for everything! Gee, if I had the money, I'd just get the 100-400mmL right away, but I'm a noob anyway. Gotta start somewhere, and I can't justify my first lens draining my pocket of $1400.00.

So when I get my 70-200 you guys don't think I should get the T-con soon after? Just save all the cash I can scrounge and purchase the 100-400 instead? Then the T-con to add to the 400mm length for bird pics? That actually sounds logical to me.....

Hmmm, primes....... eh, not my thing.

[rssfhs]

Hmmm, primes....... eh, not my thing.

For wildlife shots you will be shooting at the 400mm end 98% of the time anyway, so having the zoom is not so important IMHO. The image quality using primes is better and they are normally cheaper too.

[pwell]

Nice choice !!

[condyk]

For wildlife shots you will be shooting at the 400mm end 98% of the time anyway, so having the zoom is not so important IMHO. The image quality using primes is better and they are normally cheaper too.

I think this is pretty accurate if it's pure 'out in the wilderness' style wildlife shooting :D

I just know that when I was in Namibia I had a 400mm and I found it frustrating enough times to decide to get a zoom. Sometimes the animals where quite close by. One of my best shots at, 6.00am one morning, was of a young male Lion that walked 2m or so besides the vehicle. Of course, 400mm was also too short for some shots. Birds, I'd agree 98%. Larger mammals, it's a harder choice. Quality or flexibility? Price is a factor too, of course.

I suppose if I felt that I would use the lens for other things as well, say taking images in my garden, or whatever, and I didn't have a 70-200 or something similar (I don't any more), then I would still get a zoom. For lucky Mr RbrtPtikLeoSeny he has a quality shorter lens now and so a long prime is probably the best choice after he's invested in a 1.4 ext ... that would be very flexible, but watch for dust with all that lens changing :p

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hmmmm, condyk...... very good point.... convincing....... and primes are cheaper as well right? Huh, yea, 400mm f/5.6L is about $1100.00. Three hundred bucks cheaper than the 100-400 f/4.5L

Hahaha, damn it! Now I have another decision to make....... O well, wont be buying either one of those lenses for a looonnngggg tttiiiimmmmeeee. (At least 8 months from now). Plenty of time to think about it I guess.

Still gotta get me a wide angle too like the 17-40L. Man, It'd be nice if there was a lens that could do EVERYTHING perfectly. Then again, maybe that'd take the fun out of it. :-)

As for a prime though, for wild life, small animal the smallest I should aim for would be the 400mm with a 1.4x t-con right?

[condyk]

As for a prime though, for wild life, small animal the smallest I should aim for would be the 400mm with a 1.4x t-con right?

Well, there's small and then there's small ... but in priciple I think you've come to a fair conclusion.

You need to decide first whether you are ever going to be in wilderness areas where you regularly will need the length, or are youat heart a city slicker who would rather eat his own foot than venture more than 100m out of the city limits :lol: :lol: and a Zoo is close enough to them critters, thank you!

Assuming you decide that wildlife is going to be your big thing, then I would go the prime route only if I'd a 70-200 first and a Ext. in my collection ... otherwise I'd go for a Bigma, 100-400mm, or Sigma 80-400mm OS, just because I want the flexibility without having to crop.

Add your 17-40mm (or cheaper and 95% as good, or better!) at the wide end and 50mm f1.8 and you should be Ok for a lot of stuff. Just be patient and go for boxed SH items from reliable sellers :D

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hmmmm, alright. Thanks for all the advise. Now I have a new idea...... I wonder if I should even bother with the 70-200mm f/4..... I could just buy the 50mm f/1.8 for now.... learn...... enjoy.... get a hang of the basics... and buy that 100-400mm L glass! That's what I truely want! Almost seems like buying the 70-200mm f/4 would be a $550.00 set back......... hahaha, this just keeps getting harder and harder.

[BigWorm]

RbrtPtikLeoSeny,

Thanks for starting this thread, I was trying to make up my mind on this same question. Lots of good advice here, guys, thanks a lot for helping us noobs out! :) Now I have to finalize my decision. This should help that, though.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Awesome BigWorm! Glad this helped you! :-)

[MAD DOG]

I think if you guys can get a 70-200L f4 for $550 (Equivalent to £305 sterling),then you are VERY lucky.

In the UK they cost from £489 sterling (That's about $880) :cry: OUCH!

That said, I'm sat waiting for the delivery of mine.

Think I'll have to move to thwe good old US of A if I'm ever going to afford a 100-400L.

[cfcRebel]

Hmmmm, alright. Thanks for all the advise. Now I have a new idea...... I wonder if I should even bother with the 70-200mm f/4..... I could just buy the 50mm f/1.8 for now.... learn...... enjoy.... get a hang of the basics... and buy that 100-400mm L glass! That's what I truely want! Almost seems like buying the 70-200mm f/4 would be a $550.00 set back......... hahaha, this just keeps getting harder and harder.

You know what Rbrt, I was thinking the same thing (buying the 70-200f4L) earlier, but then I realized it probably won't fit my needs (birds, wildlife). So i have decided to put the $550 into my Bigma 50-500mm fund. It's already half way there. I thought about 100-400L too but getting that means i have to wait even longer to get it.

[NYC2BGI]

I am debating the same thing right now. I urgently need a telephoto but of course I don't want to waste my money on a cheap lens and get poor quality. I also don't want to pay an arm and a leg for a lens. The EF 75-300mm IS is about $400.00 while the EF 70-300 DO IS is about $1100.00. What would you guys suggest doing?

[mdr]

Shop around in the UK, and you'll find it new for £399 . If you've paid £489, you've been had. I got a mint, boxed second hand one in the UK for £306 incl. P&P. :D :D :D

[cfcRebel]

NYC, if i were u, instead of investing $1100 on the EF 70-300 DO IS, i would get the Bigma 50-500mm HSM ($999). Search around in this forum, you will see some sample shots from it and most people give it thumbs up in terms of build and quality.
On the other hand, if your budget is $400, try the Sigma 70-300 APO Super II, or EF100-300 USM. Alot of samples available in this forum too.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yea, NYC even I'd have to agree with cfcRebel on this one. For $999.00 you can get the 50-500mm Sigma. I've seen some very sweet shots taken by that lens on this forum! And the extra mm's on each end are very nice.

[condyk]

I'm sick as a Pig ... I just sold a superb, sharp Bigma to get a brand new Sigma 80-400 OS and, guess what, it's arrived with an inability to focus!! Out of 100+ test shots taken, indoors and out in perfect conditions, not one single keeper ... and this is taking familiar images that produced loads of keepers with the Bigma. Luckily I'm getting a full refund from a very good seller. I think it's just bad luck and the first problerm ever with a Sigma lens (this was my 6th!)

So, what do I do now? Take chance on another OS, which I really need for a walking Safari I am planning, so all hand held shooting, or another Bigma, or what!?

[cfcRebel]

Condyk, have u tried exchange it instead of refund? Maybe it's just a bad copy.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yeah, just exchange it for a new one if you really need it. I'm sure it's just a defect, and the next one will be better.