Which longer lens for Canon 5d?

[TonyW]

I bought the Canon 5d III a few months ago with the standard 24-105 L lens and later got the 100mm macro lens. All good so far. I now need a longer lens and am having trouble deciding. Can someone help with my decision? One of the uses is to photograph birds but there are other uses as well which will only be discovered after I have the lens.

There are a few possibilities. One is a Sigma 150-500 lens which is relatively cheap (about $1,000) but I have read some bad reviews of this and I doubt whether the quality is up to scratch. Another is the Canon 100-400mm lens which is around $2,000. This seems to get good reviews and would probably serve my purpose but is an older design and I am not sure of the push-pull zoom. Another possibility is the newer 70-200mm F2.8L lens which is about $2,500 plus a 2x extender for about $600. Yet another possibility is the 200-400 lens with the built in extender. However, the price of this is astronomical and I could not justify it. It is also quite heavy.

What should I do?

[Adrian]

I have used the Sigma 150-500 and if you get a good one it is fine. Be super critical and return it instantly at any sign of problems. Do not buy this lens used.

I also have a 5DIII and own the latest version of the 70-200 f2.8L IS. This is an absolutely superb lens and fantastic for portraits with lovely bokeh. You lose two stops with a 2 times extender: I use a 1.4.

I also have a 70-300 Canon DO. This doe snot review so well, but it performs perfectly! Very light. Bokeh and edge to edge IQ not in the 70-200 league.

My son and I bought a Canon 100-400 off eBay (used) for him to use for wildlife. It's fine. Personally I dislike the push pull zoom but he is fine with it. I would buy used in your shoes, try it and sell on i fit does not suit. Make sure you get box and everything if you buy used. Essential on teh used market for value purposes.

Adrian

[Steve S]

I bought the Canon 5d III a few months ago with the standard 24-105 L lens and later got the 100mm macro lens. All good so far. I now need a longer lens and am having trouble deciding. Can someone help with my decision? One of the uses is to photograph birds but there are other uses as well which will only be discovered after I have the lens.

There are a few possibilities. One is a Sigma 150-500 lens which is relatively cheap (about $1,000) but I have read some bad reviews of this and I doubt whether the quality is up to scratch. Another is the Canon 100-400mm lens which is around $2,000. This seems to get good reviews and would probably serve my purpose but is an older design and I am not sure of the push-pull zoom. Another possibility is the newer 70-200mm F2.8L lens which is about $2,500 plus a 2x extender for about $600. Yet another possibility is the 200-400 lens with the built in extender. However, the price of this is astronomical and I could not justify it. It is also quite heavy.

What should I do?

On a full frame camera, you will need as much lens as you can get. I shoot with a 300 f/4 L + 1.4TC on a crop camera (420mm or 672mm on a full frame) I still have to get quite close for good shots. I would consider a crop camera and a more reasonably priced lens. On a full frame , you'll need a 500 prime + TC and still have to do some cropping.

[kdoc856]

HI, Tony

I have loved jumping up to a full frame, but have been glad that I kept rather than selling my APS-C- you just can't beat that free reach. I'll never again have a pull-push zoom, especially if it's your only such lense- the muscle memory just gets fouled up and it's not automatic, hence potential foul-ups when timing is critical.

If you can borrow/rent the 2x Tc it might be worthwhile. I exchanged a 2x for a 1.4 because I just wasn't happy with some splotchy areas generated by the 2x, my AF din't work well, and it just slowed the lense excessively. But I have a limited experience with that.

[Ady]

Hi Tony,

A big plus for the Canon 100-400L is the push/pull zoom, I find the ability to zoom and focus simultaneously with a single hand on the lens is a wonderful thing. Obviously reading Kevin's post it would appear to be a personal preference.

The primary downside (for me) of the 100-400L is the lack of sealing (so I use the 70-300L in less favourable conditions but it is a bit short as a direct replacement on a FF body), though if you don't find yourself having to shoot in poor weather/near moving water that's not so much of an issue.

The 200-400L with the built in TC looks to be spectacular (The Digital Picture review) but no it's not cheap!

Cheers,
Ady

[William W]

For shooting birds: a good tripod and head (for use when necessary) and the EF 400 F/5.6 L USM and cropping in PP (as necessary) is probably going to be the best budget, value for money kit for a 5DMkIII.

For the ‘other uses’, which are not apparent at this time – that’s difficult to say: depends what the typical FL required will be: but as already mentioned, for birds, typically you are going to be at 400 easily; 500 or longer more probably . . . so spending on a zoom lens, just doesn’t make any real sense for that purpose.

The most flexible, quality value for money 'genera; kit' would be the EF70 to 200 F/2.8L IS MkII USM and the x2.0MkIII EF Extender AND a good tripod and head. That will get you to 400mm @ F/5.6, have IS and be better than the Sigma IMO.

WW

[TonyW]

Thanks for all the replies. I am leaning toward the 70-200 lens plus extender but will give it some more thought.

Tony

[rpcrowe]

Although the 2x extender works fine on the 70-200mmf/2.8L IS II (make sure it is the Mk.II) I would not necessarily get a lens + TC combination for general use.

Which lens or lens combination you decide upon should be chosen for your needs. I love my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on a 1.6x camera for general shooting and some sports. However, this lens would be too short for much wildlife and many sports. The 70-200mm focal range on a 1.6x camera compares quite closely with a 70-300mm on a full frame (112-320mm equivalent).

I love the 70-200mm range for travel shooting, for portraits and for just about any other shooting with the exception of some sports and wildlife when shooting with a 1.6x format. The 70-300mm range (especially with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L) should serve you equally on your full frame camera.

If I were in your place, I might consider a two lens combination... 70-200mm f/4L IS and either the 400mm f/5.6L or 300mm f/4L IS + 1.4x TC. I might also add a used 1.6x camera such as the 50D or even a 7D to that combination. The two lenes and extra camera would not be that much more expensive than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II plus 2x TC, especially if you purchased on the used or refurbished market...

I personally shoot with a pair of Canon 7D cameras and have a choice of the 70-200mm f/4L IS, 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L lenses plus a 1.4x TC. This grouping serves me in just about any venue. I will use whatever two lens combination I think that I will need. The 70-200mm f/4L IS and 300mm f/4L IS lenses make a pretty nice sports combination on a 7D. I would not necessarily choose this combination for shooting professionally but, it does a nice job for my non-professional sports use. I wish that the 7D could auto focus with the 400mm f/5.6L + 1.4x TC but, it cannot A/F at f/8...

Some folks say that you definitely need the f/2.8 aperture to shoot sports (mainly to achieve razor thin DOF) but, I don't necessarily agree with that. Although, if I were shooting sports professionally, I would use a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and a 400mm f/2.8L IS lens on a pair of 1D (series) cameras; I get some fairly decent sports shots using my 70-300mm f/4L IS on the 7D...

[William W]

(Obviously) I agree with the idea of a dual format kit, if that’s where the conversation is heading.
If Tony is open to considering these ideas, then I wouldn’t necessarily stop at merely buying a second hand 50D and a 70 to 200 might not be required.

In SYD, good prices are in the vicinity of:

300/4 IS - $1360
70 to 200/4 IS – $1130
70 to 200/2.8IS MkII - $2195
x1.4MkIII - $490
x2.0MkIII - $533
EOS 7D - $990

IF . . . F/2.8 is NOT necessarily required – then a new 7D and the 300/4 and the x1.4MkIII is about $2850 . . . now the 24 to 105 becomes an ‘equivalent use’ 38 to 168/4 IS – which might render any 70 to 200 superfluous and quite a compact two camera three lens kit compassing 24 to 672 (equivalent) - and with a back up camera.

That would get the "birds" reasonably covered and allow for opportunity to consider how the lens cache might need to develop, if at all.

WW