Canon L lenses. Worth it or not?

Dkt01 · Sep 22, 2017

Hello,

I'm wondering if some of the Canon experts on this forum could help me out. I own a 7D mark 2 camera and a canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM lense. I take photographs mostly of waterfowl and retrieving dogs, which are constantly flying, running, splashing, jumping, etc. I need the photos to be of professional quality because they are photos for an upcoming business. (The photos would be based on the web and media as the first thing viewers will see.)
I'm wondering if it's worth getting a canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II USM lense. It'd be a chunk of money but is it worth it? Would the L lense have noticeably better and more clear quality photos than the standard that I currently own? Is there another lense that would work better?
(I'm looking for a lense that will take a sharp magazine type photo.)

Thank you to anyone who can give me some advice.

zombiesniper · Sep 22, 2017

Yes you will get a noticeable quality increase.

Normally I would say go for the last gen used but in this case no. The 1st gen of this lens is really showing it's age and is outclassed by cheaper primes.
If you don't mind a prime lens and not having image stabilization the Canon 400mm F5.6 can be had for about 1K cheaper than the 100-400. They'll be the same quality images but you do get more versatility with the zoom.

In short. Yup the quality glass is worth it.

bratkinson · Sep 22, 2017

Go for it! You'll definitely see an improvement in the IQ. Also, to get the best sharpness, be sure to perform Micro Focus Adjustment with that lens (and any others you have).

jaomul · Sep 23, 2017

If you are not limited currently by the focal length, canon also do a 70-300L that is quite good but lighter smaller and cheaper than the 100-400

ronlane · Sep 23, 2017

L glass is definitely worth the money. I would agree mostly with Zombie but if you have your heart set on the Mark II 100-400, I would also throw in the mix a used 400mm f/4. The constant aperture of F/4 would be a think to have.

weepete · Sep 23, 2017

chuasam · Sep 23, 2017

Depends on the output.
If it's websizes...meh...you can get away with non L
Much of it has to do with skill
the 70-300L is also an acceptable choice.
but don't think that L lenses are a panacea for crappy images.

Dkt01 · Sep 23, 2017

Ok thanks guys, this helps a lot. (I kind of like the idea of having the extra 100mm zoom over the 300, there's been several photos that I felt were just out of range to get a good shot, even with cropping.)

One other question that I have about the 100-400L lense, is it worth getting the 100-400L IS USM 2 or just the regular 100-400L IS USM.

Is there a big difference between the two lenses besides the $1,000 difference.
(If I'm already paying that much money I want to do it right and not regret the purchase if the 2 is worth the extra $1,000.)

jaomul · Sep 23, 2017

I know a few who bought the 2 as an upgrade, apparently the 2 is much better

Fwiw I have a sigma 150-600mm C lens, and it's permanent on my camera

chuasam · Sep 23, 2017

Avoid the push pull 100-400 for digital cameras
It's nicknamed the Vacuum cleaner.

john.margetts · Sep 23, 2017

The first thing to note is that Canon's L lenses are not professional lenses, they are Luxury lenses - hence the 'L'.
Canon have a list of what they consider to be professional lenses and they are not all L lenses - here - some are even EF-S lenses.

If you are looking to display the images on the web, L series lenses are major overkill and will not produce better images than mid-range lenses will.

OGsPhotography · Sep 23, 2017

L series is awesome though

Overread · Sep 23, 2017

A few thoughts:

1) The 100-400mm MII is a big improvement over its earlier version. The original lens has a long history of being a very hit and miss lens; which is to say that manufacturer copy variation was greater with it than most others. This is something that was difficult for any lens manufacturer to achieve. The new MII version is vastly improved both optically and in reliability.
For a zoom lens that covers those ranges its a fantastic choice.
For your wildfowl chances are you will be at the 400mm end most of the time, so for that a 400mm f5.6 prime can be a superior choice; however the working dogs are likely to come fare closer and are typically bigger as well so a zoom makes more sense to cover both bases. You can always add a prime at a latter date if you want.

2) The quality of your current lens is decent so it would be good to post a few photos you've taken down in the gallery sections of the forum. Get some feedback; it could be that with a few changes to your method you could get improved results. Plus anything you learn can be used with the new lens, helping to ensure that you get the best out of it.

3) As said internet display is more forgiving than some other mediums, but you'll still see that superior optics gives you far more to work with. If this were not true I can assure you that most wouldn't pay to upgrade - heck those top end long telephoto lenses cost a fortune and some are very heavy - people wouldn't use them if there weren't a real world bonus.
So yes a good lens is well worth the investment - esp if this is your hobby as well

beagle100 · Sep 26, 2017

Overread said:
A few thoughts:

1) The 100-400mm MII is a big improvement over its earlier version. The original lens has a long history of being a very hit and miss lens; which is to say that manufacturer copy variation was greater with it than most others. This is something that was difficult for any lens manufacturer to achieve. The new MII version is vastly improved both optically and in reliability.
For a zoom lens that covers those ranges its a fantastic choice.
For your wildfowl chances are you will be at the 400mm end most of the time, so for that a 400mm f5.6 prime can be a superior choice; however the working dogs are likely to come fare closer and are typically bigger as well so a zoom makes more sense to cover both bases. You can always add a prime at a latter date if you want.

2) The quality of your current lens is decent so it would be good to post a few photos you've taken down in the gallery sections of the forum. Get some feedback; it could be that with a few changes to your method you could get improved results. Plus anything you learn can be used with the new lens, helping to ensure that you get the best out of it.

3) As said internet display is more forgiving than some other mediums, but you'll still see that superior optics gives you far more to work with. If this were not true I can assure you that most wouldn't pay to upgrade - heck those top end long telephoto lenses cost a fortune and some are very heavy - people wouldn't use them if there weren't a real world bonus.
So yes a good lens is well worth the investment - esp if this is your hobby as well