Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2019 · New tele suggestions

  
 
admiralburns
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · New tele suggestions


Hi folks,

I'm a Sony user but I'm really looking for a Canon telephoto lens due to Sony's tele options being limited in terms of used / budget pricing.

I currently have a Tamron 70-300mm f 4-5.6 which I'm putting up for sale. It's OK I suppose, but certainly a bit soft between 250-300mm, and comparatively slow.

The purpose will be travel photography including some nature / wildlife both for travel and around woods near my home, and just good clean fun. Because I'm not doing serious wildlife photography, I thought it could be more useful for my purposes to get the 200mm 2.8 prime, which would be beneficial for portraits as well, and I could couple it with the 1.4 TC and even my APS-C mode on my A7R3, cranking it to around 420mm equivalence when I want to do a bit of wildlife shooting.

The other option I looked at was the Canon 300mm F4. Just by using APS-C mode, I would get to 450mm equivalence. If I were to add a 1.4 TC it would take me to 630mm.

The bonus of the 200mm 2.8 is that it is going to be smaller and more portable. The bonus of the 300mm is, quite obviously, bit more reach.

So it seems that the tie breaker is going to be image quality. I'm curious how IQ will be proportionally effected on the 200mm by adding a 1.4 TC, as compared with the 300mm on it's own. If you have any comments on that, or ideas for other lenses I should consider, please let me know.

Thanks!

Burns



Jul 21, 2019 at 08:49 AM
dgdg
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · New tele suggestions


The 100-400 mm II is a great lens. It also does well for flowers. Unless you really need something like a 200 f2, I'd get the 100-400mm II. If your camera can focus at f8, then you have a 560mm focal length.


Jul 21, 2019 at 12:53 PM
admiralburns
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · New tele suggestions


dgdg wrote:
The 100-400 mm II is a great lens. It also does well for flowers. Unless you really need something like a 200 f2, I'd get the 100-400mm II. If your camera can focus at f8, then you have a 560mm focal length.


Thanks for the idea. I guess the reason I hadn't considered the 100-400mm II is the price. I can pick up the 300mm F4 for around $600 used, the 100-400mm II is running $1400 used, which is significant. I had also looked at the Sigma 100-400mm, but decided against it mostly due to size / weight, which I figured would make me less likely to take it with me on trips.

Burns



Jul 21, 2019 at 03:55 PM
adittam
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · New tele suggestions


admiralburns wrote:
Thanks for the idea. I guess the reason I hadn't considered the 100-400mm II is the price. I can pick up the 300mm F4 for around $600 used, the 100-400mm II is running $1400 used, which is significant. I had also looked at the Sigma 100-400mm, but decided against it mostly due to size / weight, which I figured would make me less likely to take it with me on trips.

Burns


People start out asking around $1400 used for the 100-400 II and usually come down to around $1200 if you're patient. That's what I got mine for on this forum fairly recently, and I LOVE it.



Jul 21, 2019 at 05:11 PM
dgdg
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · New tele suggestions




admiralburns wrote:
Thanks for the idea. I guess the reason I hadn't considered the 100-400mm II is the price. I can pick up the 300mm F4 for around $600 used, the 100-400mm II is running $1400 used, which is significant. I had also looked at the Sigma 100-400mm, but decided against it mostly due to size / weight, which I figured would make me less likely to take it with me on trips.

Burns


Yeah but you'll love it!



Jul 21, 2019 at 06:42 PM
snowblind-2
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · New tele suggestions



admiralburns wrote:
I thought it could be more useful for my purposes to get the 200mm 2.8 prime, which would be beneficial for portraits as well, and I could couple it with the 1.4 TC and even my APS-C mode on my A7R3, cranking it to around 420mm equivalence when I want to do a bit of wildlife shooting.


Canon 180mm F3.5 L macro is a better option than the 200mm in my opinion. Its really, really sharp and takes the 1.4x better than most other lenses. It’s also a stellar macro performer with very little distortion and it stops waaaaay down to f32. All these features together make it somewhat unique and VERY versatile lens.

Be prepared to take a tripod or monopod with you. Hand holding above 200mm can be difficult. It’s not that sharp photos are difficult but composition begins to suffer and shooting becomes more of a chore.

Matt



Jul 21, 2019 at 11:43 PM
charlyw
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · New tele suggestions


Just be aware that a lot of older lenses, especially telephoto lenses don't work well or not at all with adapters.


Jul 22, 2019 at 01:37 AM
jpeter
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · New tele suggestions


The 300f4 is significantly smaller than the 100-400. When I had one, it fit in my shoulder bag. The 100-400 requires a bit more space. Optically speaking the 100-400 has it but price and size go to the 300f4.
JP



Jul 22, 2019 at 08:51 AM
ggreene
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · New tele suggestions


I think the key is your own priority for shooting portraits at 200/2.8. If that makes up a good percentage of your usage then that's the lens to get. If you are really prioritizing reach then the 300/4 is the better value for all around IQ and being small and light for a tele.

If you really want reach there is the 400/5.6. Is that within your price range used? No IS on the lens but you've got IBIS.



Jul 22, 2019 at 09:25 AM
myboostedgst
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · New tele suggestions


I much prefer primes to zooms for long lenses. I just find that zooms sacrifice too much IQ and AF speed.

Shameless plug, I’m selling my 300/F4 in mint condition.



Jul 22, 2019 at 12:31 PM
tshore
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · New tele suggestions


Get the 100-400 mk ii. It's a bit more expensive than some other options (e.g 300 f4, 400 f5.6) but it's worth it for the versatility it provides. IS, close focus, and ability to zoom back out for those occasions you need it make this lens incredibly useful. Plus, it's as sharp or sharper than anything else under about $5k at 400mm.


Jul 22, 2019 at 01:44 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · New tele suggestions


The 300/4 non IS is supposed to be really good. 200mm too short imo for wildlife on ff. I'd use 1.4 on 300. Is 200 really much smaller than 300? I'd think they'd be similar, but haven't looked. Another option is 100-400 I.

I've seen 150-600 in your price range.



Jul 23, 2019 at 11:59 PM
CW100
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · New tele suggestions


AmbientMike wrote:
The 300/4 non IS is supposed to be really good. 200mm too short imo for wildlife on ff. I'd use 1.4 on 300. Is 200 really much smaller than 300? I'd think they'd be similar, but haven't looked. Another option is 100-400 I.

I've seen 150-600 in your price range.


I use the old original Canon 100-400 V1 and a Sigma 150-600 "C" on a Canon mirrorless, - don't know how they work on sony

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless



Jul 24, 2019 at 05:10 AM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.