Would you recommend this lens.

[Raw photographer]

Hi there, here is a link to a lens that i was thinking i might get as all i have is a Canon 18-55mm that i own and a Canon 75-300 mm that i am borrowing from my neighbor. The 75-300mm is pretty bad in terms of image quality. Anyway this lens is about the same focal length but the image quality and build quality are supposed to be 1000 times better. And the reviews prove it. I would love something like a Sigma or Tamron 100-400mm but they are heavy and more expensive especially as this will be my all around do everything lens, but i will most likely use it most for wildlife photography. Would you recommend i get the more expensive 100-400mm or stick with the 70-300mm. I will leave a link to all three lenses, the Canon, Tamron and Sigma.

Canon:
https://www.amazon.ca/Canon-70-300m...mm+is+usm&qid=1558652124&s=electronics&sr=1-3

Sigma:
https://www.amazon.ca/Sigma-100-400...&sprefix=sigma+100-400,electronics,386&sr=1-1

Tamron:
https://www.amazon.ca/Tamron-100-40...100-400mm&qid=1558798332&s=electronics&sr=1-3


Any advise would be very much appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[slat]

I have the Tamron and have been happy with it. I use it both hand held and on a tripod. It's a bit heavy but I have done some walking around with it for hours at a time. It does rotate the opposite direction of Canon though. That doesn't bother me. The nice thing about the Tamron is you can get a tripod mount for it that the Sigma doesn't even have. I got mine off Amazon for a very reasonable price.

 

[photoflyer]

I have two white and one black L series lenses. The 70-200 and the 300 prime are awesome. The image quality is exceptional but the build quality is incredible. I just got back from a canoe trip where it rained every day but one. I had the 300 with me on the 6 D mark II and it was out in the rain getting tossed around as we paddled mile father mile and then portaged our canoe. No problems. Yes they are heavy but they work when it really counts. My experience with Canon white glass has been excellent.


Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[petrochemist]

I have two white and one black L series lenses. The 70-200 and the 300 prime are awesome. The image quality is exceptional but the build quality is incredible. I just got back from a canoe trip where it rained every day but one. I had the 300 with me on the 6 D mark II and it was out in the rain getting tossed around as we paddled mile father mile and then portaged our canoe. No problems. Yes they are heavy but they work when it really counts. My experience with Canon white glass has been excellent.

L series glass is in a completely different league (in price as well as quality), comparing that to the budget 75-300 is like comparing local Saturday football league with the FA cup.
I'm not a canon user but I've heard reports on how dire the 75-300 is, and more than a few about the L series

 

[photoflyer]

I have two white and one black L series lenses. The 70-200 and the 300 prime are awesome. The image quality is exceptional but the build quality is incredible. I just got back from a canoe trip where it rained every day but one. I had the 300 with me on the 6 D mark II and it was out in the rain getting tossed around as we paddled mile father mile and then portaged our canoe. No problems. Yes they are heavy but they work when it really counts. My experience with Canon white glass has been excellent.

L series glass is in a completely different league (in price as well as quality), comparing that to the budget 75-300 is like comparing local Saturday football league with the FA cup.
I'm not a canon user but I've heard reports on how dire the 75-300 is, and more than a few about the L series

This is a good point. I also have the 70-300 EF (not the EF/S) which while also not cheap is significantly cheaper than L but still of excellent optical quality. Everyone has a budget but I would counsel someone who is getting serious to spend more on glass than the body.


Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Soocom1]

Save the money and buy the L lens.
I have the 75-300 kit lens that was sold seperately and for what I paid, I rarely use it.

Why Canon went cheap boggles my mind, but cest la vie.

Sorta like the Minolta QTsi4.... Total plastic!

 

[Raw photographer]

I'm not sure but I think you guys may be confusing the old and bad canon EF 75-300mm with the new canon 70-300mm USM II lens. I have the old 75-300mm which has pretty bad image and build quality but the new USM lens is supposedly build like a tank and I would say the image quality is way better. It's also not cheap, its $549.99 in Canadian vs the 75-300mm being only about $150.00. In my original post the top link is for the new 70-300mm usm lens.

Thanks.

 

[photoflyer]

I have the old 75-300mm which has pretty bad image and build quality but the new USM lens is supposedly build like a tank and I would say the image quality is way better. It's also not cheap, its $549.99 in Canadian vs the 75-300mm being only about $150.00

If you are talking about mark II of the EF lens, I have it. It is a very good lens and I use it when traveling and don't want to take a larger expensive L lens and don't need water sealing. I briefly had the mark I when someone gave me a 50D. I gave it to a family member. The mark II appears to be a big step up. At $500 US I think it is a good value.

 

[photoflyer]

This was shot on the 70-300 f4-5.6 USM Mark II on a T7i. I think this is the one you are referring to. Near La Paz Bolivia.

 

[Raw photographer]

This was shot on the 70-300 f4-5.6 USM Mark II on a T7i. I think this is the one you are referring to. Near La Paz Bolivia.

View attachment 174120

Yes that is the one, did you say you have it, I was thinking of getting it as an upgrade from the cheap 75-300mm, i would like a 100-400mm but they are a bit heavy and a little out of budget right now.

 

[photoflyer]

Yes that is the one, did you say you have it

Yes, I reccomend it. It is in my bag right now even though I have "better" lenses because this one fits the profile for this mission. It is a BIG step up from the kit lens.

 

[Raw photographer]

Thankyou you have been very helpful.

 

[Dao]

I have the older version of the Canon EF 70-300mm IS consumer grade lens is not bad. Although I do not use it much nowadays, but I do think it is a pretty good lens. I am sure the newer version should be better.

This was shot with the old EF 70-300 lens I have. (EF 70-300mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM at 300mm 1/320, f/5.6, ISO 200) . Look at the eye of the sparrow, you can see the St. Louis Arch reflection there.

 

[Raw photographer]

Thanks, this is a very powerful image. Very nice.

 

[Original katomi]

I have two white and one black L series lenses. The 70-200 and the 300 prime are awesome. The image quality is exceptional but the build quality is incredible. I just got back from a canoe trip where it rained every day but one. I had the 300 with me on the 6 D mark II and it was out in the rain getting tossed around as we paddled mile father mile and then portaged our canoe. No problems. Yes they are heavy but they work when it really counts. My experience with Canon white glass has been excellent.

L series glass is in a completely different league (in price as well as quality), comparing that to the budget 75-300 is like comparing local Saturday football league with the FA cup.
I'm not a canon user but I've heard reports on how dire the 75-300 is, and more than a few about the L series

This is a good point. I also have the 70-300 EF (not the EF/S) which while also not cheap is significantly cheaper than L but still of excellent optical quality. Everyone has a budget but I would counsel someone who is getting serious to spend more on glass than the body.


Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

From talking to others in camera clubs, most people will change the camera body several times but stick with good glass