Looking to get a decent telephoto lens...

I'm finally looking to get a decent long-range lens, but I'm torn between these two. On one hand, I've heard nothing but excellent things about the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM, but the 70-300 also has great reviews and has the advantage of being cheaper. I already have a 1.6 crop factor on my camera, so I think the 200 would be more than enough range. However, I also have to add in the price of a tripod collar for the 70-200, which can be anywhere from $30 to $130. I'm leaning towards the 70-200 because of the great price I can get it at and the boost in quality, but I wanted to get some opinions first.

Also, just as a reference, here are the best prices (at reputable dealers, anyways) for each I've found so far:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM: $599 at Abes of Maine, needs tripod collar
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS: $550 at BHPhoto, don't need tripod collar

I'm not exactly rolling in money, so price is a little bit of an issue. I'd like to get the best lens for the money, and don't want to go broke doing so.

Thanks!

First, I would not buy from Abe's of Maine under any circumstances. Second, exactly what do you want to photo? A 200mm might be long enough, unless you are wanting to photo wildlife or birds. Then, it won't be most of the time. What do you want to photo? Can't give any advice until we know that.


Kent in SD

You don't really need a tripod collar for the 70-200 f/4. As Kent said, if you want wildlife, you will want a 400mm minimum. The 100-400 and 400 prime are both great lenses, and worth saving up for.

If you're simply looking at sharpness then the 70-200 is by far the best lens, but like the others already said there's a lot more that needs to be factored in.

Wim

First, I would not buy from Abe's of Maine under any circumstances.

Agreed, Kent. This prompted me to post some info about why.

Save for a 70-200 F/2.8 IS..............you will not be dissappointed

I should have mentioned I'm going telephoto for two reasons. The first would be I'm just looking to extend the my range. I have a 10-20 and a 28-105, so the next step for me would be telephoto. The second would be I'm thinking of picking up more bird and wildlife photography, for when the landscape just isn't cooperating I'm pretty sure the 100-300 would work fine for that, especially considering the 1.6x crop factor on my camera. From the sound of it the 70-200 might not cut it in terms of focal length. Also, as much as I'd love to get some nice high-end "L" series lenses, my budget just doesn't allow for it. I'm trying to stay as close to $500 as possible.

Also, thanks for the heads up on Abes of Maine. I've used them a few times for some small things and never had problems, but I'd hate to run into any of those issues on a more expensive item.

I hate to be wishy-washy, but right now I'm more leaning towards the 100-300 because of the extra range and the fact that it seems to be a good introductory lens to the telephoto end of the spectrum. Also, it has very good reviews.

Thanks for the great advice so far

For Bird photography, even 300mm is grossly inadequate barring few circumstances (especially when you consider small birds like the American Robin). If you do end up choosing 300mm (which would satisfy birding scenarios in some cases), you will invariably want to add at least a 1.4x TC (which again pushes to 400mm+). So in that aspect the 70-300 would not work, because at 300mm your max aperture is f/5.6 and coupling with a 1.4xTC, there would be no autofocus on a 1.6x crop body.

But in the odd cases where the 300mm might work, you can simply choose the 70-200 and couple this with a 1.4xTC and voila you would end up with close to 300mm Focal length. 70-200 f/4 is pretty light and I never felt the need for a tripod collar for this (unless maybe your body is one of the Rebel series. But if you can wait, save and get either the 70-200 f/4 IS version or better yet the same telephoto with the f/2.8 IS.

Honestly I would recommend you get a longer zoom with at least 400mm if you are doing bird photography. I have the Canon 100-400mm which is a great lens but I find that very frequently even 400mm is not enough reach especially for small song birds, you have to get very close still. I used to have the Canon 75-300mm and I was not very happy with that lens, even though it was a 300mm lens, anything over 200mm was not very sharp, almost as though I was just resizing the 200mm to 300mm in software. I do hear that the newer 70-300mm is a little better optically than the 75-300mm but I still don't think it will compare to a higher quality lens. Also I found that the 300mm was way to short for bird photography and I am much happier with the 400mm even though I sometimes wish I had a little more reach than 400mm. Tokina makes an 80-400mm for close to the same price as those other two lenses you were looking at. I'll probably get people shaking their finger at me for suggesting a third party lens but the truth is third party manufacturers actually can make decent lenses, I love my 17-50mm Tamron and its sharper than my Canon 10-22mm so I don't use the Canon for anything in the 17-22mm range because the Tamron is sharper.

Although that 80-400mm Tamron is a good deal for the focal range if you can wait a little longer you will be much happier with your purchase, especially for wildlife photography if you spend at least $900 on your purchase. Sigma has an optically stabilized 120-400mm lens for $900 on B&H. They also have an optically stabilized Sigma 150-500mm lens for $1000 on B&H, that extra range would be very useful for wildlife photography. The Canon 100-400mm is a great lens but I don't know how much better it is than the Sigma and at almost double the price it probably isn't worth it for you, fortunately I got it before they increased the price of the lens so I saved $300. The 400mm prime lens will have superb optical quality but you may want the image stabilization which is why I would recommend one of the two sigma lenses because they are cheaper and they both have optical stabilization which will help a lot.

I know money is an issue, I have needed something in the 50-100mm range for a long time but just don't have the money at this point in my life. However, If you can save up $500 for those lenses then I would suggest you wait a little longer and save up at least another $400 to get a lens with a longer reach because for wildlife photography you just won't be happy with only 300mm.

You could get the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3. It has plenty of focal length, the image quality isn't the best but it would work fine for your first tele lens IMO. Cost $1,060 on B&H.

You could get the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3. It has plenty of focal length, the image quality isn't the best but it would work fine for your first tele lens IMO. Cost $1,060 on B&H.

I think the Sigma 150-500mm would be a better choice, its $60 less, it has stabilization and the zoom range no being quite as wide should mean better image quality. The only reason I can think of for the 50-500mm being slightly more expensive is the zoom range starting at 50mm which honestly he doesn't need because he has up to 105mm covered in another lens.

"I think the Sigma 150-500mm would be a better choice, its $60 less, it has stabilization and the zoom range no being quite as wide should mean better image quality. The only reason I can think of for the 50-500mm being slightly more expensive is the zoom range starting at 50mm which honestly he doesn't need because he has up to 105mm covered in another lens."


I agree. The 150-500mm would be better.

Thanks for all the great advice. I'm going with the Tokina 80-400 based on its great price and good reviews. Eventually I'd like to save up for some professional-grade equipment, but that's a ways in the future. Thanks again