Advice for a 300mm lens

I'm looking for a decent 300mm lens (For Canon 5D) that won't break the bank, but is still reasonably sharp. I mostly shoot landscapes, so image stabilization is nice, but not necessary. I'd rather pay for good glass than IS. I currently have a 17-40L and a 28-135 IS, so a 75-300 or 100-300mm lens would work. I hike alot, so the lighter, the better. Also, a Canon 2x converter is another option, but I've heard that they were designed to work best with L-glass lenses. I like the low price and small size of the teleconverter, but how might it compare to a lens?

Hey Scott, I love my 70-200 f4L lens (incredibly sharp), which I realize is a bit short, but my next lens will likely be the 100-400 L lens. Darren uses one, perhaps he'll pipe in to talk quality. It's an expensive, somewhat heavy lens, but that focal range is to die for. And, being an L-series lens, it accepts 1.4X and 2X converters.

Or you could get a 70-200L lens and converter. That lens is relatively cheap and still sharp with my 1.4X, which makes it 280mm.

Scott, I find both Canon TCs are great on L primes (200mm,400mm,500mm). However, almost everyone comments on image degradation with the 2x TC on even L zooms. I'd certainly recommend you borrowing one and checking to see if the IQ meets your needs with the specific lens before buying.

I'll be back in Denver at the end of this month, so give me a holler if you want to test the TCs with your current equipment.

Scott,
How big is your bank? I have the Tamron 200-500mm and have been happy with it. I don't carry it with me all the time but when I've used it I've liked the results. It's not as sharp as the Canon L primes but it costs less than $1000 and is much lighter! Here is a review that compares it to the Canon lenses http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_200_500.html that might be of interest.
I originally got this lens for recreational sports photography but have used it most for wildlife (when I don't chase them away).
Given the choice and funds, I'd go with Canon L glass but the Tamron is a reasonable alternative depending on what you need.

Kalin

I also have an EOS 5D and don't shoot much telephoto, so I just bought the Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III for about $150. Obviously, the L-Series would be better, but I'm quite happy with the results with this lens. And the lens is only about 1 pound. There's no IS, but even with IS, I have to think handholding with a 300mm lens is going to be difficult. I'd just always use a tripod. If you can afford it, the L-series might be the better option. But if you don't shoot much telephoto and just want a very inexpensive lighweight lens for those occasional times when you need telephoto, I'd say this is a good option.

I'm a perpetual grad student, so naturally my bank is small. However, I usually find that buying decent gear is a better long-term investment. Also, while I love L lenses, I've found that they are not the only good lenses made. My 28-135 IS is also a very sharp lens. Kalin, thanks for your suggestion, however, even if the 500mm is light, I bet that it's fairly bulky, isn't it? I have limited space in my pack. Todd, that 200L + 1.4 TC sounds like a good combo if it's still sharp with the TC. Bill, I'll keep your offer in mind. Grant, I'll look at the reviews for that lens. Thanks for the suggestions.

Scott,
If you're looking more in the range with 300mm being the upper end you might look at the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro. I wanted a gap filler between my 28-75 and the 200-500 and got this lens after comparing it to the comparable Canon and Tamron lenses. I got to shoot some simple tests and read whatever reviews I could. Again, I would have prefered the 70-200L but it wasn't in the budget. The sigma does well but I find myself shooting wider normally so I don't use it a lot. I carry it more often than the 200-500 due to size. In my tests and the reviews it edges out the Canon and Tamron imo and has the advantage of 1:2 macro. However, even though it is the same speed as the others, it's front is fairly small at 58mm (lens mount). Not a big deal really, but it seemed small to me and was out of wack with my filters and rings.

Just more food for thought. I agree that L is great but there are other good lenses, especially when not comparing against the L lenses.
If you happen to be down south and want to play with either lens let me know.

Scott,

While I agree that the 70-200F4L has great sharpness, color and contrast, it is still a 200mm lens.

If you want or need 300mm, the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS is respectable (non-DO version). I had portrait orientation problems with mine as it was an early one (1001XXXX). I sent it in for repair recently, and it seems to be better, though I haven't used it much since I got it back. It does have the ability to produce significantly better results than the 75-300 and 100-300 models that proceeded it. It was noted in early reviews and I've noticed that my images were much better than the samples I'd seen from 75-300 lens versions. Don't discount IS in a lens of this focal length.

The 70-300 IS doesn't have as much microcontrast as the 70-200f4 versions, but it does create an image of acceptable sharpness that can be improved with USM in photoshop. The weight is comparable to the 70-200 f4L. In other words, I wouldn't mind carrying it in my backpack when camping (and have done so).

I don't have any handy to show 100% detail, but hopefully this would give you an idea about the type of image this lens can produce.
example shot1

Darren, your 100-400L is a really nice lens, but much too expensive for me. The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM has good reviews and is a great value. It's also pretty light and is only really long when extended. It's not as sharp as the 200L, but with IS, probably a better deal. I'm open to other suggestions, but that's where I'm at for now.

Dear Scott,

I just joined the group, but I have been reading some of the posts for a couple of months. Please forgive a response from someone completely out of the blue, but I may have some valuable input.

About 9 years ago I purchased a 100-300 L series lens from Canon that did not have IS at the time. It was only $550, but the glass is very good IMHO. I just checked B&H Photo, and I don't think they make that lens any more. You may want to look for a used one. Last year I finally broke down and started by used equipment and I haven't regretted a purchase.

I've made 20x30 enlargements from Velvia with this lens and I was blown away how good they looked. With that lens and good focus, I'd think about going 24x36 or larger with good scanning and post processing on a computer. That being said, I haven't critically evaulated it in comparison to the newer L series lenses.

I hope this helps.

If you can still find one, a Tokina 300mm f/4 is a fine lens. I've got one that I bought from KEH for a few hundred dollars, and I'm quite happy with it.

Scott,

For what its worth I have a Canon 75-300 1:4-5.6 II that I haven't used since I purchased the 70-200 2.8 IS lens. I have carried it on innumerable backpacking trips. I also have a 2x converter, which you could test if you like.

100% crop of the above widgeon shot with the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS. The shot was at 300mm at f5.6. This is where this lens is weakest. The focus point was the bird's eye.

100 crop

I like the 300mm f/4 IS lens. It is light weight and produces some very nice images. Great for bird flight photography.

The old 300/4L non-IS is really nice; you might be able to get a good deal on one used. If not, the new 70-300IS sounds like the best bet.

If you are going to look at a used 70-300IS (non-DO), you need to ask the following questions.

1) What is the serial number?
If the serial number is XX0XXXXX or XX1XXXXX then it will have been covered under the service notice for portrait orientation issues.
2) Ask if it has been sent in for service already if it was in the applicable range.
If not, it only took about a week for mine to get there and back. This isn't a waranty issue, so you should be able to send it in whether you were the original owner or not.

I'd suggest qualifying what the lens is intended to do and start with a lightweight zoom just for hiking. Later on, if you decide you want to shoot wildlife, go for big glass and teleconverters. I have a number of lenses that zoom up to 200 or 300mm, but won't carry my 80-400mm when hiking and backpacking.

My $.02.

Hi Scott,

As expected, you've received a lot of different suggestions on a wide variety of lenses. Well, here's another from someone with a wide compliment of Canon L glass...try Tamron's 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 zoom. It is relatively small - inexpensive (~400) - light weight - and I think sharp enough and low enough in distortion to work well for casual use. It also has special anti-reflective coatings which are designed for the new digital imagers.

I've been using this for a lot of recent travel photography on my 5D. Best of all; no need to be constantly changing lenses = NO DUST issues. It can also be thrown into my photo briefcase (see my blog for details). It also works very well as a semi-macro lens. I've taken some gorgeous close-ups with mine.

Ken

Thanks for all of the feedback. When comparing the price of the 70-300 f/4-5.6 with a very good deal that was offered to me on a used but mint 300 f/4L, I decided to go with the f/4L. It was a better value, much more durable, considerably sharper, in-line with my philosophy of a couple good lenses, came with a collar mount and built-in hood and can be used with a teleconverter.