Next step up from the Canon EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM

ray · 22-03-2008, 10:24

What would be the next lens up from the EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM without having to mortgage my house and would the price difference be worth the quality difference thank you ....Ray

silkstone · 22-03-2008, 10:32

100-400 f/4L or 70-200L (f/2.8 or f/4), or 300 f/4L.

No, I honestly don't think it would be worth it unless you have a specific use in mind for which the 70-300 IS is not well suited. I have the 70-300 and the 300 f/4L, and hardly ever use the latter. The 70-300 is a cracking lens and I doubt if you would notice much/any quality difference with the L series at normal viewing sizes.

ray · 22-03-2008, 10:37

Thank you silkstone thats made my mind up, im staying as i am, its just that i went to a bird hide at leighton moss, the lenses i saw there where massive, i couldnt reach the island in the middle of the lake, but like you said thats a specific use which i really dont need

morlandroger · 22-03-2008, 10:45

Ray, I have the same dilemma as you. Not enough reach in my 75-300 (and not convinced of the image quality anymore) will have some money to spend at the end of the month towards another lens. Do I go for wide angle zoom such as Sigma 10-20 (I mostly do landscapes) or save my pennies a while longer and go for a longer zoom Canon 100-400 or Sigma 50-500 spring to mind. Used to photo birds and quite fancy getting into events/gigs. The more I ponder the harder it gets.

silkstone · 22-03-2008, 11:05

The 100-400 is a very good lens but a different order of magnitude in terms of size and weight. The 70-300IS is very easy to hand-hold - the 100-400 less so.

A wider max aperture is useful for low light shots (indoors, gigs, etc) although the good high-ISO performance of modern cameras has made that less critical. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is splendid but quite large and heavy. It's not something I'd consider unless I had a specific purpose in mind.

The 10-20 is a good choice for landscape and interiors.

The 'Bigma' 50-500 is a beast.

It needs a sturdy tripod and do you actually want something with that range?

ray · 22-03-2008, 11:06

Well i have made my mind up now im staying as i am, i take a lot of shots at bird tables so im fine, if i ever wanted to frequent the bird hides on marshes and lakes then i would have to re-consider

morlandroger · 22-03-2008, 12:05

Silkstone you have summed up what is going through my mind. Not sure if I actually want to spend that much on the 100-400 with my level of photography. As for length, I used to walk around in my film days with a 500mm lens looking for oppurtunistic shots of wildlife. Monopod used. Would probably get more from 10-20 and possibly a 50mm 1.8?
Ray glad you made up your mind
I seem to be rambling on now.

ray · 22-03-2008, 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by morlandroger

Silkstone you have summed up what is going through my mind. Not sure if I actually want to spend that much on the 100-400 with my level of photography. As for length, I used to walk around in my film days with a 500mm lens looking for oppurtunistic shots of wildlife. Monopod used. Would probably get more from 10-20 and possibly a 50mm 1.8?
Ray glad you made up your mind
I seem to be rambling on now.

hehe

silkstone · 22-03-2008, 12:33

I only charge 10% commission on all the money you've saved.

WOODY · 22-03-2008, 13:27

ROGER, STOP RAMBLING AND GO FOR A 10-20 YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE

dandan · 22-03-2008, 14:16

The question is should it be the Sigma 10 20 or the Canon 10 22 I wonder

**Markulous** · 22-03-2008, 14:28

Go rambling in the landscapes with the 10-20mm

silkstone · 22-03-2008, 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by dandan

The question is should it be the Sigma 10 20 or the Canon 10 22 I wonder

In terms of IQ I doubt if there's much to choose. The Canon 10-22 is reputed to have less distortion than the Sigma, but it is more expensive (although resale value is also likely to be higher). I went for the Canon partly because of a cashback offer when I bought my 30D, which brought the price down to nearly that of the Sigma and Tamron competitors, but otherwise it would have been a close call.

AQ · 22-03-2008, 14:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by ray

Well i have made my mind up now im staying as i am, i take a lot of shots at bird tables so im fine, if i ever wanted to frequent the bird hides on marshes and lakes then i would have to re-consider

A wise choice I think. Even with a 600 mm lens that small dot you get with your 300mm will only become a twice as large dot. I tried digiscoping a while ago and was working with something the equivalent of 2400 mm. Even then from half way across a lake the birds were still quite small in the frame and the quality was not much good.

dandan · 22-03-2008, 15:01

Decisions , decisions

It all seems so easy reading you guys, Silks advice as always is concise, informative and sensible.

SO

.
Do I decide on and buy one of these lenses for the landscapes I enjoy, and stick with the 350D that has served me well as my entry into photography, while I learn to use the lens,

OR

Should I get a 40D forget the lens and learn to use the new camera,

Or

Is there really a 50D not far away that I should wait for, making option one the sensible way to go

Decision, decisions what do you guys think

22-03-2008, 10:24	#1 (permalink)
ray Banned Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,017	Next step up from the Canon EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM What would be the next lens up from the EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM without having to mortgage my house and would the price difference be worth the quality difference thank you ....Ray

22-03-2008, 10:32	#2 (permalink)
silkstone Feet under the table Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Silkstone Common, Yorkshire, UK Posts: 3,415	Re: Next step up from the Canon EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM 100-400 f/4L or 70-200L (f/2.8 or f/4), or 300 f/4L. No, I honestly don't think it would be worth it unless you have a specific use in mind for which the 70-300 IS is not well suited. I have the 70-300 and the 300 f/4L, and hardly ever use the latter. The 70-300 is a cracking lens and I doubt if you would notice much/any quality difference with the L series at normal viewing sizes.

22-03-2008, 10:37	#3 (permalink)
ray Banned Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,017	Re: Next step up from the Canon EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM Thank you silkstone thats made my mind up, im staying as i am, its just that i went to a bird hide at leighton moss, the lenses i saw there where massive, i couldnt reach the island in the middle of the lake, but like you said thats a specific use which i really dont need

22-03-2008, 10:45	#4 (permalink)
morlandroger Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Lake District, North West England Posts: 518	Re: Next step up from the Canon EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM Ray, I have the same dilemma as you. Not enough reach in my 75-300 (and not convinced of the image quality anymore) will have some money to spend at the end of the month towards another lens. Do I go for wide angle zoom such as Sigma 10-20 (I mostly do landscapes) or save my pennies a while longer and go for a longer zoom Canon 100-400 or Sigma 50-500 spring to mind. Used to photo birds and quite fancy getting into events/gigs. The more I ponder the harder it gets.

22-03-2008, 11:05	#5 (permalink)
silkstone Feet under the table Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Silkstone Common, Yorkshire, UK Posts: 3,415	Re: Next step up from the Canon EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM The 100-400 is a very good lens but a different order of magnitude in terms of size and weight. The 70-300IS is very easy to hand-hold - the 100-400 less so. A wider max aperture is useful for low light shots (indoors, gigs, etc) although the good high-ISO performance of modern cameras has made that less critical. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is splendid but quite large and heavy. It's not something I'd consider unless I had a specific purpose in mind. The 10-20 is a good choice for landscape and interiors. The 'Bigma' 50-500 is a beast. It needs a sturdy tripod and do you actually want something with that range? __________________ "I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers" - Mahatma Gandhi

22-03-2008, 11:06	#6 (permalink)
ray Banned Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,017	Re: Next step up from the Canon EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM Well i have made my mind up now im staying as i am, i take a lot of shots at bird tables so im fine, if i ever wanted to frequent the bird hides on marshes and lakes then i would have to re-consider

22-03-2008, 12:05	#7 (permalink)
morlandroger Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Lake District, North West England Posts: 518	Re: Next step up from the Canon EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM Silkstone you have summed up what is going through my mind. Not sure if I actually want to spend that much on the 100-400 with my level of photography. As for length, I used to walk around in my film days with a 500mm lens looking for oppurtunistic shots of wildlife. Monopod used. Would probably get more from 10-20 and possibly a 50mm 1.8? Ray glad you made up your mind I seem to be rambling on now.

22-03-2008, 12:33	#9 (permalink)
silkstone Feet under the table Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Silkstone Common, Yorkshire, UK Posts: 3,415	Re: Next step up from the Canon EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM I only charge 10% commission on all the money you've saved.

22-03-2008, 13:27	#10 (permalink)
WOODY PLEASE NOTE I TYPE USING CAPITALS DUE TO A DISABILTY THANKS FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: ORPINGTON KENT Posts: 1,180	Re: Next step up from the Canon EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM ROGER, STOP RAMBLING AND GO FOR A 10-20 YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE

22-03-2008, 14:16	#11 (permalink)
dandan New here Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 28	Re: Next step up from the Canon EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM The question is should it be the Sigma 10 20 or the Canon 10 22 I wonder

22-03-2008, 14:28	#12 (permalink)
Markulous Pixalo Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Peak District Posts: 9,691	Re: Next step up from the Canon EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM Go rambling in the landscapes with the 10-20mm

22-03-2008, 15:01	#15 (permalink)
dandan New here Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 28	Re: Next step up from the Canon EF 70-300 F4/5.6 IS USM Decisions , decisions It all seems so easy reading you guys, Silks advice as always is concise, informative and sensible. SO . Do I decide on and buy one of these lenses for the landscapes I enjoy, and stick with the 350D that has served me well as my entry into photography, while I learn to use the lens, OR Should I get a 40D forget the lens and learn to use the new camera, Or Is there really a 50D not far away that I should wait for, making option one the sensible way to go Decision, decisions what do you guys think

22-03-2008, 15:01	#16 (permalink)
silkstone Feet under the table