# Which lens is should I buy.



## MADphotography (Jan 30, 2014)

I currently have a Canon 7D right now. I need a telephoto because the longest focal length i have is 105mm
Things that the lens will be used for:

Bird photography
Walk around lens
Things that important to me

 Price is a big one
Size i would like a more portable lens

Image Quality
Aperture currently all of my lens are f/ 4 or faster


----------



## gigabellone (Jan 30, 2014)

I have no experience with longer lenses, but as far as i know "bird photography" and "walk around lens" can't be attributed to the same lens. 
Among those you listed, the 70-300L seems to be the one, but i suggest you look into the 100-400L, which would be better for the purpose, IMHO.


----------



## tron (Jan 30, 2014)

Hello, this is my subjective list regarding the requirements and lenses you mentioned:


Bird photography: *Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM*
Walk around lens: *Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM*


 Price is a big one: *Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM*
Size i would like a more portable lens: *Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM*

Image Quality: *Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM*
Aperture currently all of my lens are f/ 4 or faster: *Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM*


----------



## MADphotography (Jan 30, 2014)

gigabellone said:


> I have no experience with longer lenses, but as far as i know "bird photography" and "walk around lens" can't be attributed to the same lens.
> Among those you listed, the 70-300L seems to be the one, but i suggest you look into the 100-400L, which would be better for the purpose, IMHO.


 Thanks for the help and by walk around I should have said a more versatile lens.


----------



## yablonsky (Jan 30, 2014)

70-200 f4/L IS USM - light, great image quality and not too expensive, compared to the 2.8


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 30, 2014)

Not on your list, but you could probably get these two for the price of one of your "short-listed" lenses:
[list type=decimal]
[*]*EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM* - general purpose walk-around lens (although I prefer the non-IS version);
[*]*EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM* - birds (both kinds).
[/list]


----------



## tron (Jan 30, 2014)

The selection "other" isn't very helpful. How about replacing it with 70-200 f/4L IS and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS and asking users to update their selection? Unless of course you have ruled out these 2 lenses.


----------



## Longexposure (Jan 30, 2014)

The 70-300L. It's sharp, lightweight and very portable. Plus you have an equivalent fov of about 480mm.
Alex


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 30, 2014)

gigabellone said:


> I have no experience with longer lenses, but as far as i know "bird photography" and "walk around lens" can't be attributed to the same lens.
> Among those you listed, the 70-300L seems to be the one, but i suggest you look into the 100-400L, which would be better for the purpose, IMHO.



+1. How much do you value weigth and range? If you plan on using it exclusively outdoors, then the 70-300L works well. Compact and well suited for travel (relatively light), but it will not get you close enough to birds. The Tamron 150-600 weighs 75% more than the 70-300L but gets to focal lengths that birders typically use.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 30, 2014)

yablonsky said:


> 70-200 f4/L IS USM - light, great image quality and not too expensive, compared to the 2.8


+1 on this and combined with a 1.4x extender, it makes for a helluva combo. I used this for years and was very happy with the lens.


----------



## tron (Jan 30, 2014)

How about the following table with ranking (1: lowest, 5: highest) ?
Of course it is subjective and you are free to change the numbers. 


*Lens/Use * *Bird Photography * * Walk around** Price ** Size ** Image Quality** Aperture **Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM*4​4​4​4​4​3​*70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM*3​3​2​2​5​5​*70-200mm f/4L IS USM*2​3​4​5​4​4​*Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM*4​1​3​3​4​4​*Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS*5​2​4​3​3​3​


----------



## zim (Jan 30, 2014)

Does anyone have practical experience of how the 70-300L and 7D AF work together?

Regards


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 30, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> yablonsky said:
> 
> 
> > 70-200 f4/L IS USM - light, great image quality and not too expensive, compared to the 2.8
> ...



*+1* on this suggestion. It's about what I was thinking too based on your desire for price.

*OR* - Get the *70-300L + the 1.4x extender* which also makes a helluva combo. I do that myself sometimes for extra reach. (But don't forget you'll lose an extra stop with the extender.)

*OR* - Give up some quality and gain a lot of versatility with a *Tamron 18-270MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD*. Yeah, it's not an expensive Canon L lens but it's not a bad walk around lens if you're willing to accept the super-zoom compromises. Might be worth a try to rent.

Before you buy anything, just rent a few things on a weekend and work them all as much as you can.


----------



## Rams_eos (Jan 30, 2014)

I have the 70-200 F4L IS and it is a wonderful walk around lens (on cropped). But I wished I would have more reach.
So I vote for 70-300L which is a great match for 7D.


----------



## ClickIt_AC (Jan 30, 2014)

zim said:


> Does anyone have practical experience of how the 70-300L and 7D AF work together?
> 
> Regards



I use the 70-300 L as a walk around lens. It works very well with a kenko Pro 300 1.4x teleconverter. Here is a snap from my crop sensor holiday camera with the same senor IQ as my 7d(I did some extensive testing!) The picture was from a 70-300 with converter. The lens works fine on all formats although it does feel a little erm...'FAT'! It helps to balance it with a grip for sure on the rebels/Ti's. The IQ is slightly better without the converter. If you are close enough to minimise cropping and have good light then you don't need it obviously. Only matters on really large prints, again...obviously. 

Good Luck!


----------



## zim (Jan 30, 2014)

ClickIt_AC said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have practical experience of how the 70-300L and 7D AF work together?
> ...



Do you ever use this combo (without converter) in AI Servo mode? Its really how this lens performs with the 7Ds AF I'm curious about. I guess if that bird was running around at that point pretty darn good would be the answer!

Regards


----------



## mwh1964 (Jan 30, 2014)

Really enjoy the 70-300L. Such a great lens. Only get the 70-200L2 if you absolutely need f2.8.


----------



## philmoz (Jan 30, 2014)

zim said:


> Does anyone have practical experience of how the 70-300L and 7D AF work together?



http://www.pbase.com/phil_a_mitchell/africa
http://www.pbase.com/phil_a_mitchell/berwick_show_2013
http://www.pbase.com/phil_a_mitchell/herveybay2013

Works very, very well.

Phil.


----------



## ClickIt_AC (Jan 30, 2014)

zim said:


> ClickIt_AC said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



I use the lens in AI Servo for sports on the 7D with no problem. I do have some photos on photobox but am on a tablet and not near my computer now so cannot post a sample. Sorry Zim. :-\


----------



## zim (Jan 30, 2014)

Thanks Phil and clickit, I'll enjoy checking out those links 

Regards


----------



## ftico (Jan 31, 2014)

I have a 70D and I shoot mostly birds. I find 400mm is (at least) what you want for birds (yes, on crop), unless you shoot from a blind, or target only large ones.

So among your options, I would go for the 100-400. I bought a 400mm 5.6L and have been very happy with the results, but beside the moon or the occasional sun setting, you don't get to shoot much else than wildlife (and in that case you often have to crop a lot anyway). If you'd like something you can use to shoot the occasional portrait, or landscape, I'd say the 100-400 is a good compromise -- and it is stabilized (while it is not that helpful for taking sharper pics of birds, since you're gonna want to shoot at least 1/800-1000, it is very useful for properly framing a photo @ 400mm).

I have a 70-300, but the reach is just not enough for most photo-hunting scenarios. I still use it for captive animals.

Good luck!


----------



## Inquisitor (Jan 31, 2014)

First I would decide if 300mm is enough. Then what type of lens I prefer fixfocal or zoom. 

300mm:
Tamron 70-300/4,0-5,6 VC USD 
EF 70-200/4,0L IS USM + 1,4x Converter

400mm:
EF 200mm/2,8L USM + 2x Converter (only secondhand, very good and cheap)
EF 200mm/2,8L USM II + 2x Converter
EF 70-200/2,8L USM + 2x Converter (only secondhand)
EF 70-300/4,5-5,6L IS + 1,4x Converter
EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS USM
EF 300mm/4,0L IS USM + 1,4x Converter
EF 400mm/5,6L USM (has a similar bokeh to 500L and 600L)


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 31, 2014)

I voted for the 70-300 L.

However, if price is a big concern, I would take the Tamron 70-300 VC USD. Very good lens and it's 1/4 of the price of the Canon L.


----------



## fragilesi (Jan 31, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> I voted for the 70-300 L.
> 
> However, if price is a big concern, I would take the Tamron 70-300 VC USD. Very good lens and it's 1/4 of the price of the Canon L.



My vote goes for the 70-300L to ocover that range of photography which is similar to most of my own. I have a 70d (similar AF system) and it works fine in AI Servo mode which is my most used too.


----------



## bod (Jan 31, 2014)

gigabellone said:


> I have no experience with longer lenses, but as far as i know "bird photography" and "walk around lens" can't be attributed to the same lens.


+1 
I prefer primes and have and value the very good 300 f/4L but for me it is not in most circumstances a "walk around lens". Before settling on a lens at this focal length I tried it out and the 70-200 f/2.8L x1.4, 70-300 f/4-5.6L. I thought its IQ at 300 was the best but was impressed with the 70-300 zoom also. Obviously the 70-200 f/2.8 is a superb lens but with the x1.4 attached it is much heavier and a more expensive lens to buy. It is more flexible than the prime in terms of focal length but in my case I would use a different lens if I wanted a shorter focal length. My logic was that for wildlife, the zooms would be parked permanently at their long end and so the 300 f/4L is a lighter and better choice for me. My experience so far with "bird photography"is that 300 is not enough.


----------



## noncho (Jan 31, 2014)

I wanted the same as the author - good long lens for wild and walking around with 60D.
There is no perfect choice for that, but I end up with old Sigma 100-300 F4 + 1.4 extender.
And it's good not expensive option for me. 70-300L would be better(picture and IS), but a stop darker(no AF with extender) and more expensive.
Samples:

Bird, 420 5.6 wide open (300+1.4 extender)






Landscape 250mm 





Autumn leaves ~200mm


----------



## iaind (Feb 1, 2014)

You will need 400mm

Don't think 75-300 accepts extender


----------

