Long lens- telephoto

[Nathaniel]

Having sold my Canon 300mmf4L lens due to weight issues, I am hankering after a lighter long lens such as the Tamron 200-500mm lens (wt 1200grms) for my BIF shots. Although this weighs as much as the Canon 300mm, atleast this has a reach of 500mm at the top end. I would therefore appreciate the members views on this lens- if they own or have owned one. I also don't mind any other third party lens. The budget is around £1000 max. I am also conscious of the fact that I will be buying a FF camera along with my present 60d and therefore an EF fit lens would be a better choice for me.

Many thanks

Nathaniel

[Stan]

Re: Long lens- telephoto

I don't think you will get anything to match the image quality of a canon L lens. I have not used the Tamron but did borrow and consider a sigma 50-500 but like the Tamron it was a slow lens with f 6.3 at the long end so needs very good light to perform adequately and is really not much lighter than the Canon 300f4

Stan

edited to get rid of the jibberish caused by trying to type areply on the kindle which #Dee was driving on the motorway at 70 mph

[mikep]

Re: Long lens- telephoto

What about the 400 F5.6, Nat. Longer and lighter than you old 300!

M

[paul linton]

Re: Long lens- telephoto

Mike could have the answer Nathaniel,Lots of second hand ones around and in your price range.

Paul

[Stan]

Re: Long lens- telephoto

What about the 400 F5.6,

heavier than both the Tamron and 300 f4.

Stan

[Nathaniel]

Re: Long lens- telephoto

Thanks Mike,Paul and Stan for your advice. Yes, the 400mm is heavier than my old 300mm. I wonder whether I can get a 2X Canon TC for my 70-200 and get the reach I am looking for? I like this lens as it is light for me to cart around and it has a constant f4 throughout the zoom range. The other alternative for me is the get the 70-300 L lens and get a third party 1.4 TC for this lens as my present Canon 1.4TC will not function with this lens.

[Paulstw]

Re: Long lens- telephoto

Nat I fired a 3rd party teleconvertor (2x) onto my 70-200 last week. I loved the reach, but the metering was all over the place. It was so inconsistent that it put me off them for life. Having -2 stops of EC dialled in one minute then it's normal the next on the same scene.

The 1.4x is supposed to be better than the 2x in terms of IQ, and of late I've just been getting closer to the subjects. Not everyone's cup of tea right enough.

Tamron have a new lens (150-600) coming out, although there's talk of it costing a fair bit. Have you not considered the 100-400L? It's most people natural fall too when a long prime or teleconvertor system isn't an option.

I think whatever you choose, there's no real getting away from the fact that long zooms are heavy, with the Sigma 150-500 being not too bad. However, like Stan said, that variable aperture really does frustrate when the light is anything but sunny.

My workmate uses the 70-300L and seems to get on quite well with it.

If it was me going back in time, I'd get the 400 5.6. I spent most of my time at the 200 end on my lens and always feel the need to get closer.

[mikep]

Re: Long lens- telephoto

Whoops, sorry Nat. Didn't mean to offer wrong advice... Should have checked the 400mm was lighter than the 300mm!

Apologies, Mike.

[Riggers]

Re: Long lens- telephoto

Nat, with your 300 being F4 I don't think a 2x is wise as you lose 2 stops and I think it will only work in MF so I think 1.4 is your best bet.

There are many ways to get 400mm+ reach (without spending £5k plus which is out of reach for most of us) and I've looked at all these options a lot the last few months reading many reviews online. I came to the conclusion the 300F4 +1.4 offers the best in terms of IQ, weight, price etc. I think this explains why there are so few offered second hand.

Sounds to me like you need your old lens back :)

[Stan]

Re: Long lens- telephoto

I wonder whether I can get a 2X Canon TC for my 70-200

a 2x on your 70-200 f4 will not autofocus and will need good light anyway to perform at its best - I only occasionally use my 2x on my 70-200 f2.8 but the light has to be good

Sounds to me like you need your old lens back :)

I dont think i would ever part with mine

Stan

[Nathaniel]

Re: Long lens- telephoto

Thanks again folk. OK I won't consider the 2x again esp a third party one. It looks like my choice would be the 70-300L + 1.4 third party TC or my old friend, th 300f4L back again.

Paul, I certainly won't be venturing closer to the subject like you do as I will certainly not be able to extricate myself from the water when I fall in-as I surely will if I am going after KF's

[Muscat]

Re: Long lens- telephoto

Nat, have you thought of getting a Canon 200 f2.8 and coupling that with a 1.4x converter, it would give you nearly the reach of your old 300mm at f4 and the lens new is under you £1000 budget and weighs in at 765grams.

it is a good lens light and good value for money.

[Nathaniel]

Re: Long lens- telephoto

Ian, I have thought of the 200mm f2.8 and the reach is the same as my present 70-200f4 albeit apart from the faster aperture. The 300mm did give me a reach of 672mm with the crop factor. How do you find the 70-300mm L lens with a third party 1.4TC ( I know that the Canon 1.4TC is not compatible with this lens?)

[Riggers]

Re: Long lens- telephoto

I sold my 2x which I sometimes used with the 70-200 2.8, in favour of using the 1.4 and now I really regret it. But I just managed to pick up a 300 F4 for a decent price so I'm well chuffed now. I'm also not going to attempt to get as close as Stan, and I'm definitely not getting as close as Paul did when hunting Kingfishers lol.

BTW there's a 100-400 for sale here in the classifieds.

[Woolley]

Re: Long lens- telephoto

It looks like my choice would be the 70-300L + 1.4 third party TC:

I'm not sure a 3rd party TC will fit this lens. The Sigma certainly won't as it's for the same range of lenses as the Canon one and I rather think that's the same for any others. The reason is that the design of the TC is such that it fits into the rear of the lens (have a look at how recessed the rear element of your 70-200 is) whereas I believe the 70-300 is flush rather more like your 24-105.