Purchasing a new Canon Lens??? Help???

PNWPhotos.com a friendly and growing community of photographers with an interest in the Pacific Northwest region. We feature a Photography Discussion Forum and Pacific Northwest Photo Gallery. It's a fun and friendly place to talk with other photographers, ask questions, share you knowledge, view and post photos and more!


SlickPixPhotography

SlickPixPhotography

New Member
Hello Everyone, I am thinking about purchasing a new lens for my Canon 7D. I have three lenses in mind and not sure which is the best lens to go with. I am a professional photographer and I am also a photojournalist for a small local paper. The three lenses I am interested in are:

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens


Please help me out and I would appreciate all of your comments.

Thanks!
 
really depends on what your needs are

I own both 70-200 f/2.8's (with IS & w/o IS)

am sold on the f/2.8
if, and this is a deciding factor), if you ever need to shoot in low light
ie. HS basketball, volleyball, dance, any indoor activity ... you will need the f/2.8 ... do you need the IS ... not if you are shooting action, because you want your shutter speed fast enough to not blur, so IS won't kick in until the SS slows down LOL

if you discover, down the road, you need reach, you can always add an extender, I use the 2x on my 70-200 outdoors all the time

I've used the 100-400, and wished it went to 70mm and wished it was a 2.8 LOL but that is me, don't own the IS version of the 70-300, don't love my old 70-300 .. IQ sucks

what do I shoot with my 70-200 ... pretty much anyting & everything

portraits & headshots
youth sports
dog shows & sports
fashion shows
birds
wildlife
add kenkos tubes and use it for macro flowers too

its range is very versitle, IQ and bokeh is awesome
and it is cheaper if you don't get the IS version

hope my review helped
you can view more reviews on http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27
here are many peoples reviews of each of your mentioned lenses :)
 
I'm not a Canon guy but I've gotten the most use out of my 70-200 2.8 or the lens paired with a TC1.4. But ive also found that I like the 70-200 range better on FF for portraits. I'm shooting night varsity football for a paper this fall and there is no other lens I'd rather have in this price range.
 
I think you need to go with the 70-200. It will outperform the other two in low light situations, which is necessary if you're going to shoot any sports as part of your journalism work. I use mine as my second lens for football, volleyball, softball, etc., and as my primary lens for basketball.

And it works quite well with a teleconverter.

Max
 
Out of the three you have listed, I would go with the 70-200

I have played with the 100-400 and like Nina wished it was a little wider and 2.8 through the range

We love our 70-200, it is one of few that I would NEVER get rid of
 
if you have the cash, get the 70-200 f/2.8. if you need more range, get a 2x extender for it.
 
I own both the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 100-400. I use both for different things.

In part, it depends on what other lenses you already own. If you already have a 24-70 f/2.8, for example, then the logical match is the 70-200mm. You're already used to the f/2.8, and if you got the 100-400, you'd have a gap, and the slower lens would make you crazy sometimes. On the other hand, if you currently use a 24-105 f/4, then you're already used to a slower lens, and the 100-400 is a more logical next lens for you; you'd have no gap to worry about.

The 7D is a cropped sensor camera, so that would make me lean more toward the 70-200mm. I shoot FF bodies, so I sometimes need the greater reach of the 100-400.

For me, I tend to use the 70-200 most often when shooting people portraits, or events where I'm relatively close to my subjects. I tend to use the 100-400 more when I'm shooting sports outdoors (soccer, baseball, etc), although the 70-200 is okay if I'm right on the sidelines. I use the 70-200 far more often than the 100-400, although in the right circumstances, I love the 100-400 and am very glad I have it.
 
I noticed that you had the 100-400 on that list..

If you need a lot of reach and are finding th 70-200 to short, you could get all crazy like and get the ......








Sigma 120-300 F2.8 DG EX OS. and a 1.4x/2x teleconverter. That way you are covered from 120-600mm and still maintaning AF. It is spendy but hey if you need more reach and F2.8@ 300mm... Just saying...

if not then I also will back up everyone here saying Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens.
 
well, MsJ, you may be right, and what did you spend the morning shooting with? the 70-200 f/2.8L with a 2x extender LOL
 
There definitely is a trend here, and these folks have said exactly what I'd say.

However... There really isn't enough info to answer the question. OK, so you're a pro, what do you shoot? Indoors, outdoors, action, portraits?

The 70-200 2.8 would be my choice (and was my choice, but in Nikon flavor). I shoot a lot of low light stuff. My wife, who doesn't do low light subjects very often, loves her 70-300 for the extra reach.

I know some train photographers who have the 100-400 on their cameras pretty much all the time. Again, the love the extra reach.

So, to really answer the question, you'll need to answer these questions:
What is the subject?
How far away is it?
How fast is it moving? (all the IS/VR in the world won't stop a fast train or baseball player running full tilt for home base)
What is the light, and how often do you shoot in low light?
What is the use of the images? i.e. What are the quality requirements? Can you live with a bit of softness and grain, or do they need to as crisp, sharp and clean as possible?

Righ now, I'd say the 200 2.8. But if you come back and tell me you make a good bit of your income from bird and wildlife shots, then suddenly the 100-400 will be the one I'd pick.
 
Canon shooters, help me out a bit here please?

> Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens
> Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens
> Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens

OK, obviously the 2.8 lens is essential for low light.

But the center one has me wondering. Why would you pick it over the 100-400? They're both 4 to 5.6 lenses. Sure, you lose a bit of wide angle on the bottom end, but 70-100 isn't that big of a difference (presumably you've got another lens for that range...)

So why not go long with the 400? Is there a quality difference or some other factor I'm missing. (I'm not at all familiar with Canon gear specs.)
 
I am agreeing with the comments regarding the the 70-200 F2.8 as the best all around lens, especially for journalism shots where you might find yourself shooting indoors.

I will say this much, since I sold my 100-400 (darn economy) I would struggle with how I will replace that lens, since most of my shots are wildlife. The 100-400 does produce clearer shots for me than the 70-200 with the 2X on it and I had the benefit of adding a 2X on the 400 in bright lighting. I would not choose the 70-300 because to me it is much to much of a compromise for me.

I think I am leaning towards the 70-200 because I already have 2X, then again I do love Nina's 50-500 sigma.
 
JaniceL said:
The 100-400 does produce clearer shots for me than the 70-200 with the 2X on it and I had the benefit of adding a 2X on the 400 in bright lighting...
Click to expand...

Based on my research, teleconverters are a compromise. You tend to lose a bit of image quality, and depending on what type you use, sometimes the focusing isn't quite as fast or precise.

Also, 2x teleconverters effectively turn your 2.8 into a 5.6 (correct?), so you've lost the fast lens advantage. Of course you get it back when you remove the converter so if your primary need is for a fast lens at lesser zoom, then it is a workable solution.
 
Last edited:
BobH said:
Based on my research, teleconverters are a compromise. You tend to lose a bit of image quality, and depending on what type you use, sometimes the focusing isn't quite as fast or precise.

Also, teleconverters turn your 2.8 into a 5.6 (correct), so you've lost the fast lens advantage. Of course you get it back when you remove the converter so if your primary need is for a fast lens at lesser zoom, then it is a workable solution.
Click to expand...

Based on my experience, you are correct in both cases. To choose to use teleconverter (extender in canon terms) would for me be an economic decision. It comes down to answering the question of which lens does the best job that you need it for most often? In other words where do you get the most bang for the buck or what puts more money into the bank account.
 
Thank you for all your wonderful comments. I see many of you ask of what kind of shooting I do.

For my professional photography work I shoot:

Family Portraits/ Portraits

Weddings

Landscapes

Cityscapes

Pets

Flowers

Special Events

Commercial

_______________________________________________________________________________

For my photojournalist work I shoot in daylight/lowlight and night:

People

Special Events

Car Accidents

Structure/House Fires

Crime Scenes
 
SlickPixPhotography said:
Thank you for all your wonderful comments. I see many of you ask of what kind of shooting I do.

For my professional photography work I shoot:

Family Portraits/ Portraits

Weddings

Landscapes

Cityscapes

Pets

Flowers

Special Events

Commercial

_______________________________________________________________________________

For my photojournalist work I shoot in daylight/lowlight and night:

People

Special Events

Car Accidents

Structure/House Fires

Crime Scenes
Click to expand...

If you had a 70-200 and a 100-400 in your bag, the 100-400 would collect a lot of dust over the 70-200 f 2.8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a commision from some of the links and ads shown on this website (Learn More Here)



PNWPhotos.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com

Back
Top