Tele for max $1500

Im a little bit shy to ask espacially as theres another thread discussing about the which lens next questions buuut:

Im so undecided since a few weeks. I never waited so long to decide me but i want the very best for my money and i cant see any relevant reviews in direct comparisons about the:

70-300L 4-5,6
400L 5,6
300L 4

Im just wanting a long lens for travelling and compressed shots (in terms of perspective distortions)
I want to shoot a damn image of the moon and it doesnt matters if it just fills a small amount of the image its still bigger as my 135mm allows to.
I want sharp images with a good AF system and build quality. Ill use it mostly for street candids and maybe as a wildlife lens maybe (no 400 or 300 will work good wildlife always depends the desires)
Im also a bit worried that the 70-300 wont give me nice separation (bg blur) at 300 and 5,6

Is it even possible??
Are there lenses out there i missed considering?

The Canon 100-400 is just north of that price range. That lens has many fans and may be worth considering.

Tapeman wrote in post #16314372
The Canon 100-400 is just north of that price range. That lens has many fans and may be worth considering.

But its so damn strange: since the IS system is quite old i dont know if its worth it. But then im like the primes dont even have IS so what the hell is my problem?!

if you are not shooting wildlife and you are using FF I think the 70-300L is the best choice...but I think I've told you that before . I am also a big fan of the 100-400L but it's more of a wildlife lens, imo.

I love my 70-300L. Just sayin'. It's a great lens for travel since it's the lightest and most compact of the three. In fact, I can't really imagine travelling comfortably with either of the two primes you listed.

Of those three lenses the most flexible is the 70-300L, which is a very fine lens.

The 400 5.6 is perhaps the best lens in the world for birds in flight, but falls short on many other things not having IS or a particularly close minimum focus distance.

The 300 F4 is a good lens, but it has an older IS system, and is still larger than the 70-300. However it can still be used w/ a 1.4x TC as a 420mm F5.6 IS lens; with a reduction in focus speed and image quality of course.

The 70-300L is most compact when stored, sharp wide open, fast AF, newest IS, and of course covers 70-299mm as well.

What about third party lenses? Any comparable lenses in a price range as described like the 70-300?

davidfarina wrote in post #16314438
What about third party lenses? Any comparable lenses in a price range as described like the 70-300?

Not really...

I suggest the 70-300L for versatility. I've never owned one but the range is right. You may also want to consider the Sigma 120-400. For about $1,000 it is bested only by the much more expensive 100-400L.

the sigma 400 5.6 apo macro hsm is often compared with the canon 400L 5.6. it's only about $350-400 used. the only thing is that most of them aren't "re-chipped" to be stopped down past 5.6. if that's a problem then disregard.

out of the ones you posted, i'd go with the 400 5.6.

Lol i think ill never have the desire to stop past 5.6

What about isolation at 300mm and 5.6. Isn't it a little bit hard to achieve enough amount of background blur?

davidfarina wrote in post #16314585
Lol i think ill never have the desire to stop past 5.6

What about isolation at 300mm and 5.6. Isn't it a little bit hard to achieve enough amount of background blur?

depends on what your subject is, and how far you are to it, and how far the background is...

if you're taking a closer shot of a hummingbird or something, at 300mm f5.6 the background will be blurred quite well

DreDaze wrote in post #16314659
depends on what your subject is, and how far you are to it, and how far the background is...

if you're taking a closer shot of a hummingbird or something, at 300mm f5.6 the background will be blurred quite well

Thats the problem. I think with 300mm at f/4 i get nicer background blur with more distant subjects like a person..

davidfarina wrote in post #16314728
Thats the problem. I think with 300mm at f/4 i get nicer background blur with more distant subjects like a person..

I think 5.6 gives you perfect background blur for portraits and maintains an adequate DoF getting everything from nose to ears in focus. Here is an un-cropped image. I was about 15-20 feet away when I took this candid. I know it's not great with the cable cutting through the frame, but I was on the rail of a sailboat and couldn't move any more without going overboard.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
300mm, ISO 100, f/5.6, 1/400s

I don't think you'll see much difference between f/4 and f/5.6. You want bokeh at 300/400mm, you will need either lots of distance, or lots of money, like for an f/2.8 lens.