• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Lens dilemma (1 Viewer)

Vectis Birder

Itchy feet
I am going to buy a Christmas present to myself, a new zoom lens.

My choice is either the Canon 70-200 f4 L series zoom or the Canon 70-300 f4.5 USM IS zoom. The L series lens is, well, an L series and should be good, but I would quite like the extra reach of the 70-300 plus it has IS as well.

I am leaning towards the 70-300 as it is also cheaper than the L lens, £389 as opposed to £449, but then I think about the L-series and lean back again!

So, please, help me decide. Given the choice, which one would you go for?
 

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper
I am going to buy a Christmas present to myself, a new zoom lens.

My choice is either the Canon 70-200 f4 L series zoom or the Canon 70-300 f4.5 USM IS zoom. The L series lens is, well, an L series and should be good, but I would quite like the extra reach of the 70-300 plus it has IS as well.

I am leaning towards the 70-300 as it is also cheaper than the L lens, £389 as opposed to £449, but then I think about the L-series and lean back again!

So, please, help me decide. Given the choice, which one would you go for?
I have the 70-200 f4 and I can say that it takes a 1.4 tc very well, this would take you up to 280mm if required (for what it is worth, the 70-300 will not even take a Canon tc). I need not tell you about the IQ of the 70-200 f4 as it is widely known as one of the very best Canon zooms.
 
Last edited:

JohnZ

Well-known member
Just my tuppence worth. I think this is a no brainer. The 70-200 f4 is quite a bit better than the other lens you have mentioned. The IQ will knock spots off of the 70-300.
 

postcardcv

Super Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
I'm another very happy 70-200 f4 user, it's a cracking lens I'm sure you'd be very pleased with if you do go for one.
 

Vectis Birder

Itchy feet
Thanks for the replies so far. I am definitely leaning towards the L lens. I'm not in a rush to get one, it might have to wait until after Christmas so I don't clean out my account in one hit.
 

Lewie

Well-known member
Thanks for the replies so far. I am definitely leaning towards the L lens. I'm not in a rush to get one, it might have to wait until after Christmas so I don't clean out my account in one hit.

I am fairly new to digital photography, and I do not mean to offend anyone, but why buy the Canon L 70-200 and a converter? Why not put out another $400 and get the Canon L 100-400. It is all personal choice, but I have never been a fan of the 70-200 range of zooms - always wanting more or less zoom.

Now that I have offended everyone, what are the opinions on the Canon L 100-400 and how it compares to Sigma 150-500?
 

JohnZ

Well-known member
Lewie, The cost of photographic equipment in this country is a lot more than in the U.S.
That is why I have bought all of my lenses in the U.S.
A Canon 100-400L in this country costs over $1400 USD, $1440 approx., due to the weakness of the pound sterling. Unless a Canon 70-200 f4 costs at least $1000 USD in the States then your theory is incorrect.
 

Lewie

Well-known member
Lewie, The cost of photographic equipment in this country is a lot more than in the U.S.
That is why I have bought all of my lenses in the U.S.
A Canon 100-400L in this country costs over $1400 USD, $1440 approx., due to the weakness of the pound sterling. Unless a Canon 70-200 f4 costs at least $1000 USD in the States then your theory is incorrect.

John:

I meant the difference between the 70-200 and the converter versus the 100-400.

Per BH photo I show that the difference is $440.
L 70-200 $580
Televonverter 280
-----
$860
====

L 100-400, after rebate $1,300.

Naturally, most persons will use the converter with multiple lenses. For many persons, a 70-200 lens may just the thing. I take mainly photos of birds, and a little of landscapes; therefore I usually want a wide-ange or a more powerful telephoto.

Sorry to hear that camera equipment costs much more in Europe. I have heard how much more binculars cost in Europe than in the U.S.

Lew
 
Last edited:

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper
Lewie, The cost of photographic equipment in this country is a lot more than in the U.S.
That is why I have bought all of my lenses in the U.S.
.
John, at today exchange rate of just under 1.5 $ to the £ the US prices are not looking so attractive. If you compare prices at B&H with the UK you will find that the UK prices is actually cheaper in a lot of instances. I was reading a thread only today where a guy in the states has just bought a lens from the UK because it was cheaper !
While the pound was hovering around 2 $ to the £ the states were attractive but over the last 30 years or so 1.5 to 1 has been more the norm - in the mid 1980's the pound and the Dollar were just about at parity 1-1, if that happens again our prices will be just about the cheapest going. I doubt if Kerso is so competitive at the moment.
Of course none of this means a lot to us if you buy UK stuff, we still have to stump up the same amount.

Also in the states you have to add on a state tax which varies from State to state but is typically 7% I think. Unlike our vat, the state tax is not shown in their prices.

As an example the 100-400 is $1399 + 7% would be $1432 (exc Canon rebate) at todays exchange rate this is £954. It is available for £939 in the UK so very similar.

p.s. Once retailers run out of current stock I would think that UK prices will be rising owing to the weaker pound. If you are in the market to buy a piece of non UK made kit, then now could be a good time to buy.
 
Last edited:

twolf

Well-known member
Lewey
I'm not sure what plans Vectis Birder has for the lens, but I doubt absolute range in one of them.
70-200 lenses are a completely different category than xxx-4/500mm zooms. And usually people buy them for very specific purpose.

I mentioned the TC simply to point out the difference in quality between the L lens and the consumer 70-300mm. Meaning it's much better.

In terms of prices your math is correct, but most of bird photographers already carry a TC in their bag, or prefer 3rd party alternatives (Kenko, Tamron. etc) which sell a lot cheaper.
But then again I must re-mention - you cannot compare lenses which are completely different.
 
Last edited:

Vectis Birder

Itchy feet
I am fairly new to digital photography, and I do not mean to offend anyone, but why buy the Canon L 70-200 and a converter? Why not put out another $400 and get the Canon L 100-400. It is all personal choice, but I have never been a fan of the 70-200 range of zooms - always wanting more or less zoom.

Now that I have offended everyone, what are the opinions on the Canon L 100-400 and how it compares to Sigma 150-500?

Lol! No offence taken but I already have the 400mm f5.6 L, so I don't need a 100-400 zoom. I just wanted something shorter, beginning at 70mm and going up to 200/300 ish.

I tried out both lenses in the shop today. I took my camera in, got to see the big pics, and I was very impressed with the 70-300 (not to be confused with the frankly crap 75-300 or the earlier version of the 70-300) performance. The IS was great and, as I can't afford both the 70-200 AND a tc, I went with the 70-300. I did notice that the L lens was soft down the left side. Odd.

To be honest, while it is not an L-series, the 70-300 should suit my needs just fine. An L zoom can wait for another time and when I am richer.

Thank you to everyone, and please don't all give me a hard time because I went against your suggestions. o:D
 

Lewie

Well-known member
Lol! No offence taken but I already have the 400mm f5.6 L, so I don't need a 100-400 zoom. I just wanted something shorter, beginning at 70mm and going up to 200/300 ish.

I tried out both lenses in the shop today. I took my camera in, got to see the big pics, and I was very impressed with the 70-300 (not to be confused with the frankly crap 75-300 or the earlier version of the 70-300) performance. The IS was great and, as I can't afford both the 70-200 AND a tc, I went with the 70-300. I did notice that the L lens was soft down the left side. Odd.

To be honest, while it is not an L-series, the 70-300 should suit my needs just fine. An L zoom can wait for another time and when I am richer.

Thank you to everyone, and please don't all give me a hard time because I went against your suggestions. o:D

Vectis,

How do you like the L 400? Is a person better off with the L 400 than an
L 100-400? Would the L 400 provide high quality pictures than an L 100-400 zoom? I do not know, but will take all the advice I can get.

Best of luck with your new lens!

Lew
 

Vectis Birder

Itchy feet
Vectis,

How do you like the L 400? Is a person better off with the L 400 than an
L 100-400? Would the L 400 provide high quality pictures than an L 100-400 zoom? I do not know, but will take all the advice I can get.

Best of luck with your new lens!

Lew

Hi Lew, I love my 400L, it is a super lens. It is pin sharp and absolutely superb. The zoom is far more flexible, of course, but I didn't need one at the time.
 

postcardcv

Super Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Vectis,

How do you like the L 400? Is a person better off with the L 400 than an
L 100-400? Would the L 400 provide high quality pictures than an L 100-400 zoom? I do not know, but will take all the advice I can get.

Best of luck with your new lens!

Lew

If you have a look through the Canon section you'll find plenty of threads discussing/comparing these two lenses. Both are excellent, both can deliver great images, it's personal preference as to which suits you best.
 

Jaff

Registered Member
I can give you the benefit of personal expeience here (well sort of).

My dad had the 70-300mm before he got his 100-400mm and whenever he, myself and my brother Paul would all go out he'd always borrow Paul's 70-200mm (the IS model) using his own Kenko 1.4x. The 70-200mm with 1.4x TC still had a better IQ than the 70-300mm and was a bit faster too if I remember right. Not to mention with the 70-200mm you have a stellar lens without the TC capable of doing a little bit of macro work an all.

Regards. :t:
Jaff
 

Vectis Birder

Itchy feet
Weeeellll...after having a go with the 70-300mm over Saturday and this morning, I decided that I really wished that I HAD gone for the L-series. So, it was off back to Jessops just now and an exchange plus an extra £50 for the L lens.
They had a couple so I made sure I didn't get the one that is soft on the left!

I am now totally skint but pleased. Bread and water over Christmas I think!

So, I did eventually take everyone's advice. I can live without IS, I have for nearly 20 years now! We all make mistakes... o:D

Cheers everyone, and Merry Christmas.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top