# What telephotos do we own?



## AlanF (Sep 15, 2014)

With new telephotos being announced, questions asked about how many telephotos are sold, and the usual arguments about about which are better, it may be interesting to know the numbers and choices of CR members. To keep the options down, I haven't divided into I and II series.


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 15, 2014)

Mine's the cheapest - the 400/5.6. Its been a good lens, but it's about 20 years old and has a pretty bad fungus problem and is currently unusable. Just waiting for Canon to bring out a new model (or new 100-400) to replace it. But then, the new Sigma sounds ok, too.


----------



## tayassu (Sep 15, 2014)

What about the 70-300L? I've been shooting birds with that for 2 years!


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 15, 2014)

I think you should add the Sigma 300-800/5.6 to the list. A few birders have that one, and if they have that one, they might have a few less of the others - it covers a pretty wide range.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 15, 2014)

I've owned far too many over the years, and resold all of them but my current 100-400mm L. The third party ones all tended to be poor by comparison, and I don't think I can even remember all of them.

I'll try to list the 300mm or longer ones from the last few years.

Canon 100-400L (2 of them, the first was not so good)
Canon 400mm f/6 L (Great lens, lack of IS and, mfd too long, and length caused me to sell it)
Canon 300mm f/4L (Another great lens, but I kept the 100-400)
Canon 600mm f/4L (Non-IS version - too much work for me to set it up and haul around)
Canon 35-350L (Very nice, but lacked IS)
Canon 28-300L (Nice lens and sharp for a superzoom. Big and heavy)
Tokina 400mm f/5.6 (The sharpest 3rd party lens I've owned, but poor construction)
Sigma 400mm f/5.6 (would not work on digital, became junk)
Tamron 200-500mm f/6.3 (Pretty bad,)
Sigma 600mm Mirror lens (2 of them) - Good for a mirror lens, but difficult to use with no IS and fixed aperture
Nikon 500mm Mirror lens (the best mirror lens I've owned)
Nikon 300mm f/2.8 (Manual focus when adapted to Canon, but nice and sharp)
Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VC I (My Nikon to Canon adapter could not adjust aperture, so I bought a cheap D300s. Nice lens)

I've also had a ton of the lesser XX-300mm lenses, some were just ok, others were bad 70-300, 75-300, 28-300, 100-300, and so on.

I buy used equipment from Craigslist if its too cheap, and get this stuff along with cameras, TC's, etc. I play with it and keep what I like. I buy new as well, when I need something specific.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 15, 2014)

How could you omit the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x ??


----------



## AlanF (Sep 15, 2014)

Eldar said:


> How could you omit the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x ??



Easy, but I have now added it.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 15, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > How could you omit the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x ??
> ...


And I have now voted


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 15, 2014)

Please also add the 70–300L. It makes a great travel zoom, IMO.


----------



## Besisika (Sep 15, 2014)

For now, just the 300mm f4 but thinking about something longer soon.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 15, 2014)

Where is 55-250 IS option?


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 15, 2014)

What about the highly under rated 200 2.8 ?


----------



## stochasticmotions (Sep 15, 2014)

I used to own the canon 100-400L, used it for about 80 percent of my shots for about 6 years and fell out of love with it last year when I tried the Sigma 120-300 f2.8. This has been my go to lens now for the last year using both the 1.4 and 2X teleconverters. Great combo ( but rather heavy ). I am looking at one of the 150-600 options for travel since my current combo is rather heavy unless I can get something for my sony a6000 that is long enough to make that my travel companion.

I've pretty much given up on canon coming out with something new in this range that I don't have to sell my car to get


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 15, 2014)

*There is NO check-box for NONE.* 

I rent as needed. It's been about four years since I rented a telephoto.


----------



## FEBS (Sep 15, 2014)

I own the 200-400 1,4x And that is realy the most verstilde I know. It s heavy. That's true. Hard to handhold for a longer period. However to deliver the range of 200 to 560 mm is really great. The 300mm 2,8 is another great lens. Incredible sharp and fast. I will not sell it now I have the 200-400, but to be honest it is used less compared to a few months qgo


----------



## bholliman (Sep 16, 2014)

I currently don't own any lenses longer than my 70-200 2.8 II plus extenders and that is generally OK. However, I do occasionally want something longer with better IQ than is possible with a 2xIII. I'm thinking about adding a 400 f/5.6 in the near term and saving up for a 300 2.8 II longer term. 

I have a self imposed annual budget for photography equipment and it will take me a few years to save up for a 300 2.8 II! I had the pleasure of renting one for a weekend a few months ago and its an incredible lens!


----------



## nc0b (Sep 28, 2014)

I have the 70-200mm IS II, and had both 1.4 and 2X III TCs until I bought the 400 f/5.6 and 300 f/4. Sold the 2X III, not because of any complaints with IQ, but if I lost focus on BIF I could rarely reacquire focus. I can take a 2 to 5 mile hike with either prime and not complain about the weight. I use these with either a 6D or 60D.


----------



## weixing (Sep 28, 2014)

Hi,
I had both Canon EF 400mm F5.6L and Tamron 150-600mm.... I mainly use Tamron now and the Canon is my backup lens...

Have a nice day.


----------



## rdalrt (Sep 28, 2014)

No love for the 200 f2? Not long enough?


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 28, 2014)

rdalrt said:


> No love for the 200 f2? Not long enough?



It is certainly expensive enough. 

Personally I miss the 300 f/4 I had; great performance, light, small, comparatively cheap.

Jim


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 28, 2014)

AlanF said:


> With new telephotos being announced, questions asked about how many telephotos are sold, and the usual arguments about about which are better, it may be interesting to know the numbers and choices of CR members. To keep the options down, I haven't divided into I and II series.


I used the 300mm f/4L IS and was good performer. Now I use the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II + 2x III teleconverter. Looking forward to see the new Sigma offerings and the 400mm f/5.6L.


----------



## PKinDenmark (Sep 28, 2014)

My longest for quite some time was the 70-200 L IS 4.0.
Needed something longer for small birds. After a long wait for new 100-400 I jumped to Tamron 150-600 a month ago.
Sofar I am very pleased with it. It focuses well, offers effective IS, and produces better IQ, than I expected, even wide open (as open as it gets). Very good value for money in my view. 
One example (one of the small birds, that were my main reason for it): 
My garden Nuthatch: @600mm, 1/250, f/6.3, ISO 800. 
(My brother actually mastered this shot - he is a pro  )


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 28, 2014)

*None.* I rent as needed, that saves ma a lot of money  

Over the last 10-12 years I've rented EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, EF 300 f/2.8 IS USM, EF 400 f/2.8 IS USM, EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM, Extender EF 1.4X and Extender EF 2X. Used for Auto Racing and Surfing.


----------



## Omni Images (Sep 28, 2014)

I rest my case for a new version of the 400 F5.6 ... it's coming in 2nd as the most popular lens.
New electronics. USM and IS ... latest glass coatings, perhaps a tweak here or there to the optics, a lick of new paint .. oh and the most important issue I think is a closer min focusing distance in line with the 300F4 or the 100-400 and it'll be a winner.
I'm stuck using a 70-200 2.8IS and at times a 2xIII, but wanting the "prime experience" with a clean, light, straight 400.
Not that keen even on the new 100-400, but may only get it for it's close focusing .. if it's the same as the old one at 1.8m. I don;t really need to lug around the extra stuff, as I really just want 400mm
Does sales have to slow down on a lens for Canon to think about a replacement ?
It still seems to sell well ... a friend of a friend only posted two days ago a pic of his new 400F5.6 sitting on the front seat of his car driving home from the shops after just purchasing it.
So for me it's a toss up of the closer focusing of the 300F4 or the reach of the 400F5.6 ... but the bigger issue is both lenses are so old they both are long overdue for a re-vamp ... and I want the new re-vamped models, not going to buy the older version no matter how good they still are, they are due for a new version of both.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 28, 2014)

Omni Images said:


> I rest my case for a new version of the 400 F5.6 ... it's coming in 2nd as the most popular lens.
> New electronics. USM and IS ... latest glass coatings, perhaps a tweak here or there to the optics, a lick of new paint .. oh and the most important issue I think is a closer min focusing distance in line with the 300F4 or the 100-400 and it'll be a winner.
> I'm stuck using a 70-200 2.8IS and at times a 2xIII, but wanting the "prime experience" with a clean, light, straight 400.
> Not that keen even on the new 100-400, but may only get it for it's close focusing .. if it's the same as the old one at 1.8m. I don;t really need to lug around the extra stuff, as I really just want 400mm
> ...



Three years ago I was in the same situation: 100-400 or 5.6 400 or wait vor a mark ii version ... I bought the 5.6 400 because the price gone up (1500 Euro) but I had one dealer who sold it for about 1200 Euro. So far it was a reasonable decision because no mark ii version hit the market in the meantime.

Your points are very good: minimum focus distance and missing IS limit the 5.6 400 but on the other hand this sturdy, compact and well designed lens gives you at least a 1 or 2 stop advantage compared to a not so sturdy design.
The IQ is stellar - just atmospheric turbulence limits its sharpness/contrast/IQ moderately to severely depending on the weather conditions/local conditions. So the 100-400 will give you the same IQ in the field most times I think. And I like to have the ability to use f/11 @ 800mm with a 2x TC (mark i) which works very well with this "lens of the 1st hour".

You have the 2x TC so the 4.0 300 might be an option for you with a 7D ii which has AF on centerpoint with f/8.0 @ 600mm ... but: no easy decisions at all ...

Last point: Check IQ under field conditions between your 70-200 with 2x TC versus 5.6 400 if you have access to a 5.6 400 - perhaps the difference isn't that big and you do not need to lug around to much gear.


----------



## Omni Images (Sep 28, 2014)

Yeah, mb66energy,
I'm not that impressed with the 70-200 2xII combo ... 
In fact I'm leaning towards perhaps a 300F4 1.4III combo.. as the 300F4 min focus is 1.8m
My main issue is min focus .. as I can regularly get much closer to smaller birds than the 3.5 min focus on the 400 F5.6, so I would be constantly frustrated ... getting so close then not being able to get a shot ... you need to get that close with small birds ... thats why I love the 70-200 it focus's down to 1.4m and I can get that close, or being still they will get closer than even that.
The other option would be say extension tubes with the 400F4.5 ... not sure how that would work with bigger or further away subjects .. and constantly changing would a pain in the arse.
Both 300F4 and 400F5.6 have very high image quality ... and would be great choices ....
But Canon need to revise both as both have issues .... from what I have read ... 300F4 clunky IS .. first generation ... 400F5.6 way too far min focus and of course no IS.
I have a 1Dmk4, so I could still have auto focus to F8 with a 2x tele converter, but focus is painfully slow and seeks focus a lot in low light too.... so a lean clean prime would be better.
CANON make a new version 400 F5.6 IS with a min focus at least 1.8m and it'll be such a good selling lens for sure.


----------



## lol (Sep 28, 2014)

Since 300mm class lenses are included here, it would have been useful to have the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 in there too.


----------



## candyman (Sep 28, 2014)

FEBS said:


> I own the 200-400 1,4x And that is realy the most verstilde I know. I*t s heavy. That's true. Hard to handhold for a longer period.* However to deliver the range of 200 to 560 mm is really great. The 300mm 2,8 is another great lens. Incredible sharp and fast. I will not sell it now I have the 200-400, but to be honest it is used less compared to a few months qgo




Do you use it - if needed for a longer period - icw monopod or tripod?
If monopod, how much time did you need to control the balance on the monopod? It seems to easy to loose the straight horizontal line (while being in landscape mode) Thanks


----------



## quod (Sep 28, 2014)

I have the 70-200 II, 100-400, 400/5.6, and 500/4 I. All are sharp, although the 100-400 is the weakest of the bunch. I handhold all of them, including the 500. I have used 1.4x III on all. Generally the extender degrades the contrast and sharpness on all of them, although I notice it the least with the 70-200. If the 100-400 and 400 were updated, I'd buy both. I'll probably upgrade my 500 to the 500 II or the 200-400, as the IS in my 500 is only 1.5 stops or so.


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 28, 2014)

I have the 100-400L and the 70-300 non L altough the 70-300 hasn't seen the light of day since I bought the 100-400L.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 28, 2014)

rdalrt said:


> No love for the 200 f2? Not long enough?



+1 , It's what I ended up with after owning every 70-200, 300 f4, 300 f2.8 L IS, and it is by very far the coolest one, and will never ever sell it. It's so useful and so epic.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 28, 2014)

None yet, but eyeing the 400 f5.6L


----------



## Helios68 (Sep 30, 2014)

No of them... Yet

I have planned to buy the 400mm f/5.6 but I still hope Canon brings a new one with IS for a fair price.
(1500€).
My dream is the 300mm f/2.8 but I have to spare money and convice my wife before ;D ;D ;D


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 30, 2014)

The longest I have is the 180mm Sigma. It is plenty long enough for the type of shooting I do. 

Often thought about getting a longer FL lens, but never could justify the cost/size/weight.


----------



## Helios68 (Sep 30, 2014)

So I am not the only one ;D

Please Canon develop us a new 400 f/5.6 with IS and make money with it ! 8)


----------



## Davebo (Sep 30, 2014)

400 f5.6.... Get it...use it (a lot) and you will LOVE it! For birds and other wildlife it always goes with me. Not always the case for my 500 f4. The 400 produces stunning pictures (even wide open). The more you use and your skills improve the less important IS becomes.


----------



## NancyP (Sep 30, 2014)

The 400 f/5.6L no-IS. The lens is a featherweight, sharp wide open, easy to pan hand-held, ideal for BIF, and I can carry it all day for long hikes.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 1, 2014)

Helios68 said:


> So I am not the only one ;D
> 
> Please Canon develop us a new 400 f/5.6 with IS and make money with it ! 8)



Would you still love it just as much if it weighs 25% more? And cost twice as much?

The current lens is almost perfect the way it is, like, dead on, they did such a good job 20 years ago that no-one since has bothered to compete.
If you have any need for a 400mm lens, just get one. With the complete lack of competition they probably won't upgrade it. Ever.

As long as we're dreaming though.
I would be interested in a DO upgrade, cut a few inches off that bad boy, and make it sharper, give it real weather sealing, and you have something that the competition won't be able to touch for another quarter century.
Then add IS in 2040.


----------



## meywd (Oct 1, 2014)

Got the 100-400mm L f/5.6 recently, a really great lens, at least for the price


----------



## Steve Todd (Oct 1, 2014)

I have the 100-400L, the 70-300L and a 28-300L. The 28-300L rarely comes off my 1D X! However, I am ready to purchase a true "Great White" (I know, they are actually gray). It will probably be the 300 2.8 II. Although, I am tempted to go with a 400 2.8 II, I think the 300 will best serve my needs (BIF, wildlife & motorsports).

Of all of the lenses that I have read reviews on, just about everyone rates the 300 2.8 II as probably the sharpest telephoto lens that Canon makes. It also seems that it suffers the least when teamed-up with the 1.4X III and 2.0X III TCs. That tells me a lot, as does having seen many fine images made with that lens on this site and in numerous publications. 

I would also like to see an updated/upgraded 100-400L, the flexibility of that zoom range makes it a very handy lens indeed.


----------

