Lens advice

[HAZZA]

Thanks Bill, really appreciate your advice, some more options to explore

[shaz]

Which is the best travel lense for Canon

[Donald]

Which is the best travel lense for Canon

That depends on where you're travelling and what you want to do with it once you're there. For example, I'd probably not think of taking a wide angle to shoot wildlife in an African game reserve.

[Steve S]

Hi harry, you already have a lens that can get you to 250mm.(which can be upgraded later to the 70-200 L) My sugestion is a canon 300 f/4L IS. You can use the straight lens for 300mm or add a 1.4TC(with almost no loss in image quality) for 420mm. You also have image stabilization which is very helpful shooting wildlife in low light.

Zooming with your feet isn't as bad as you think. If you need 350mm, use the 300 and take 5 steps closer.........or use the 420mm and take 7 steps further away. 250mm, use the 300 and take 5 steps back. 500mm, take 8 steps closer with the 420. (10mm of lens, is only about a step.) Its very easy ,and only a problem if you can only stand in one place for the shot. I like to leave around 10 to 15% extra room for cropping when i can.


If you're set on a zoom, save your money and buy a good one. Most cheaper zooms are only good over a portion of the zoom range. (usually lacking on the long end of the zoom)

[Steve S]

That depends on where you're travelling and what you want to do with it once you're there. For example, I'd probably not think of taking a wide angle to shoot wildlife in an African game reserve.

Why not? Elephants are big.

And large herds of game animals would require one as well.

[Donald]

Why not? Elephants are big.

And large herds of game animals would require one as well.

That's true!

[Cantab]

Hi Harry,

another vote from a very happy Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L user...

Some folk have mixed feelings about the 'trombone' zoom but personally I like having a single hand on the end of the lens managing both zoom and focus....
Cheers,
Ady

I'll add my vote to the group of happy Canon 100-400 L users.

[Ken MT]

This was a 100-400 with 2X extender on a FF 5D Mk 2.


Without the 2X it would look like this (although not necessarily on its side)


I am very happy with the 100-400 despite having to manual focus with the 2x extender
The bird was a white faced heron Egretta novaehollandiae

[HAZZA]

[QUOTE=Steve S;287870]Hi harry, you already have a lens that can get you to 250mm.(which can be upgraded later to the 70-200 L) My sugestion is a canon 300 f/4L IS. You can use the straight lens for 300mm or add a 1.4TC(with almost no loss in image quality) for 420mm. You also have image stabilization which is very helpful shooting wildlife in low light.

Thanks Steve - appreciate your response

[HAZZA]

This was a 100-400 with 2X extender on a FF 5D Mk 2.


Without the 2X it would look like this (although not necessarily on its side)

I am very happy with the 100-400 despite having to manual focus with the 2x extender
The bird was a white faced heron Egretta novaehollandiae

Thanks Ken -nice images, appreciate you taking the time to reply as well

[Buckeye]

I shoot Sony also. Help - if you can. I have an a77 and am not terribly impressed with the 75-300mm I got as an accessory. I am getting purple fringing on my images when I have the telephoto extended to 300mm. Called Sony - changed the WB, tried shooting in other settings, but still the same fringing. They seem to think the 55-300mm lens won't produce this problem. So, I am considering returning it for the 55-300mm lens.

Do you have either lens? Do you have an opinion of one over the other?
Thanks,
Anita

[kaneohebud]

Anita: Save up and buy the Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G. A world of difference.

[Zora]

My advice for what it's worth save up and get the Canon 70-400 L lens. Just returned from Costa Rica and often disappointed with my 70-300. It worked well as a macro and for birds etc within 12-15 meters but outside that range it was less than steller.

We're going back in a few months once we've sold the house and will most likely upgrade to the above.

Jeez I THINK I've attached a sample of the Montezuma Oropendola doing it's weird mating dip. If it's there you can see how soft the image turned out. And there were lots like that. In many cases I'm sure it was operator error but seems to me at the end of the day it was just a limitation of the lens.

(f/10 1/320s iso at 250 cloudy day)

Roz

[Ken MT]

A crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) numbered at 300-400 only, on nest at lake Pearson,(South Island New Zealnd) using a 100-400 2x extender (800mm), 1/8 sec, iso 400, f11. The bird was probably about 15 m away under tight undergrowth. (RAW + Jpeg)

[jeeperman]

I shoot Sony also. Help - if you can. I have an a77 and am not terribly impressed with the 75-300mm I got as an accessory. I am getting purple fringing on my images when I have the telephoto extended to 300mm. Called Sony - changed the WB, tried shooting in other settings, but still the same fringing. They seem to think the 55-300mm lens won't produce this problem. So, I am considering returning it for the 55-300mm lens.

Do you have either lens? Do you have an opinion of one over the other?
Thanks,
Anita

Anita, I used that lens in the past and had the same issues. Mostly shooting birds in a tree. Also shooting wood ducks, they are high contrast in feather pattern and the duck looked neon! I upgraded to the 70-400G and have 0 issue, as Bud said.....world of difference!. This is not an inexpensive lens and you can get away from the problem by stepping up to the 70-300g and I believe there is one between the G and yours that is quite nice as well but I have no experience with it.
I also shoot an A77.

[HAZZA]

When I was looking for something for long-landscape stuff, I assessed that the Sigma 120-400 F4.5-5.6 APO DG OS offered the best value for money in terms of my available budget at the time.

I haven't been disappointed.

Just an update Donald - given I am still learning I decided to go with the Sigma - have had it for a week now - still getting used to it but really like it so far - will post a few pics soon

[Shadowman]

My advice for what it's worth save up and get the Canon 70-400 L lens. Just returned from Costa Rica and often disappointed with my 70-300. It worked well as a macro and for birds etc within 12-15 meters but outside that range it was less than steller.

We're going back in a few months once we've sold the house and will most likely upgrade to the above.

Jeez I THINK I've attached a sample of the Montezuma Oropendola doing it's weird mating dip. If it's there you can see how soft the image turned out. And there were lots like that. In many cases I'm sure it was operator error but seems to me at the end of the day it was just a limitation of the lens.

(f/10 1/320s iso at 250 cloudy day)

Roz

I am curious as to where the 70-300mm failed you, at what focal length, what were the issues. Where did the 70-400mm excel, did it get you better performance above 300mm?

Thanks