Next 'natural' lens up from the 24-105mm?

[HDPete]

Hi all,

I have traded up to an EOS 5D MkII and in effect starting again with my lens collection. Before I had far too much overlap in my lens choices.

I have the kit 24-105mm IS USM L lens which is great for a walk-about lens, but I'm now after a telephoto. My main reason for wanting a longer focal length is for the annual air show, wildlife from a distance and sports day. I want something that will go up to ~400mm.

So far, I've considered the

• Canon 100-400mm 'L'
• Canon 70-200mm 'L'
• Sigma 120-400mm
• Canon 70-300 DO

but I'm stuck on making a decision.

It sounds silly, but I like the sigma because of its finish, although it seems a bit too heavy to lug around.

I'm not sure whether the 70-200 would give me much more beyond the 105mm of the kit lens. I'm looking for the next 'natural' step up from the kit lens' range.

The 70-300mm DO lens is very compact and lightweight, but I can't find a review on it to be able to judge if it'd be suitable.

Any observations / advice gratefully received to help me make a choice!

Regards
Pete

[anglefire]

Review of the DO is http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

As are the other Canon Lenses. It's a slightly biased site, but he generally says it as it is.

I've not used the 120-400 - and it has good reviews on the WEX site. I have used the 120-300f2.8 and its a good lens. AF was a bit slower than my other canon lenses, but not enough to cause an issue with the shots that I took anyway!

[HDPete]

Thanks for the link and tips!

Have you ever noticed much of a difference in the final image quality of pictures taken on a canon / OEM lens?

I've got this daft belief (completely unfounded on any facts) that anything other than the manufacturers lens will not be as good as the original.

Also, if I go for the lighter weight DO 70-300, is there any key dis-benefit of using it with a 1.4x convertor?
That way, it would give me the lightweight lens, plus the option of additional range.

Cheers
Pete

[pavman]

HDpeter do you have a budget?
I have the 25-105mm F4 and as you say good walk about / travel lens, I also have the 70-200 F2.8 IS USM lens and I have a x 2 extender which gives me the extra length but loose a couple stops but the results are very good despite adding the extender. I am saving like made for the 100-400mm

[HDPete]

Originally Posted by pavman

HDpeter do you have a budget?
I have the 25-105mm F4 and as you say good walk about / travel lens, I also have the 70-200 F2.8 IS USM lens and I have a x 2 extender which gives me the extra length but loose a couple stops but the results are very good despite adding the extender. I am saving like made for the 100-400mm

I hadn't considered the extender on the 70-200. That's an interesting prospect.

Budget is around £1000 for the right lens, which is why all the questions.

Cheers

[flake]

Didn't you ask this in an earlier post?

I'd still reccomend the 120 - 300mm f/2.8 Sigma which gives you an autofocus lens all the way to 600mm, with a 2x TC. It would have to be a second hand buy though as it's about £2500 new.

£1000 won't buy you a Canon 70 - 200mm f/2.8 IS L and as it's due for replacement anytime soon prices should fall. It's not the best lens in the world hence the replacement, however the Sigma 70 - 200mm f/2.8 HSM Macro isn't either so you're a bit stuck. The old Sigma pre macro is a whole lot better, but again you'll have to buy it second user.

If you want to photograph small wildlife such as birds, 300mm is the minimum focal length you'll need so bear that in mind, also f/5.6 is as low an aperture that the autofocus will accept, so adding teleconverters will not allow AF if aperture falls belowthat. f/2.8 uses the more sensitive AF points and should focus more quickly than slower lenses.