To "L" or not to "L"

[MJL]

Hello!

I have googled, read reviews, searched for a definitive comparison to no avail. I cannot decide between the 70-300mm f/4-5.46 IS USM or the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM. 

I no longer do freelance work. Now I just like to take my camera out for myself. I'm looking at the 70-300 mainly for the purposes of photographing the coastal wild horses and for traveling.

The difference is about $900. If I for sure will be SO much happier because of VERY noticable differences, I'll spend the money. But I cannot find anyone who can give me an honest answer of yes you need this one vs. no you do not.

Does anyone have experience with both lenses or have an opinion of one vs. the other?

Thanks in advance!
Michele

[jrhoffman75]

Check the Canon eStore for refurbished lenses. Great prices, same warranty as new. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@MJL wrote:

Hi John

I'll be using a 5D as well as a T5i.

Most of the time, yes, I will be in good light. On occasion I'm looking at early morning/early evening light as well.

As for needing 300- I originally had looked at the 100-400, but the weight sent me in a different direction. I abide by the rules and stay a good distance from the horses, so I was looking for the longest reach without that weight. Although 300 will be great, having the lens on the T5i to reach 480 will be a nice treat, since sometimes the horses are a far distance away.

I'm going to look at the 55-250 and 70-200 now. Thank you for the advice on the non-L being slow focusing. Fast is definitely important to me.

Thank you!

---

The EF-S 55-250 lens will not work with a 5D camera.

Just about any high quality, zoom telephoto lens will have significant weight, when compared to lenses in the standard zoom range.  I would put a priority on image quality, and weight second.  You can always use monopod or a tripod for support.

Personally, I love the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM lens, the 2nd version, both for its' size and weight.  I think you were looking at the 1st version of the lens.  I have found the weight [3.5 lb (1.59 kg)] of the 2nd version to be heavy for those unaccustomed to such a lens, it is nowhere near the weight of the Sigma 150-600mm [4.3 lb (1.95 kg)], or the Tamron 150-600mm [4.30 lb (1.95 kg)]

If you want focal length, go for either the Sigma or Tamron 150-600 lenses.  I went for the Sigma because of the Sigma Dock feature that allows you to tune the lens. I didn't see reports of the Tamron having better weather sealing against the elements as significiant because neither is water or dust proof, just merely "resistant".

While weather sealing is important to me, I fear most of the gear is more robust than I am.  Not unless I am caught by surprise, I do not see myself going toe to toe with Mother Nature with a camera in my hand.  I like the weather sealing, mainly because I assume the lenses will be more resistant to mold and mildew over the years.

I have found the IQ and AF speed of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM to be exceptionally good.  It is nearly identical in size to the 100-400mm, weighs [3.28 lb (1.49 kg)], and feels almost identical.  With a battery grip on my 6D, both lenses are well balanced in hand. 

I like the 150-600mm if I am going to be relatively stationary, with a tripod, and the 100-400mm if I am to be somewhat on the go, without a tripod.  I like the 70-200mm lens for general shooting [tourist mode], almost as a longer version of a standard zoom. 

Again, don't let weight be the primary factor in choosing a lens.  Image quality should always be the priority.

[ScottyP]

Hi,

The "L" lens is much sharper according to my eyeballs as viewed in the Lens Image Quality comparison tool on The Digital Picture website.  

Select one lens on the left , the other lens on the right and compare by toggling the little left or right arrow.  I looked at 70mm and at 300mm at the same apertures, of course, and there was really no comparison at all.  The difference is more noticable wide open, but even with both lenses at f/11 the "L" lens is clearly sharper.  True, a test chart is not a horse but unlike in some comparisons, this difference was really quite significant.

I find trying to ask opinions on something that is subjective and visual can be fruitless and frustrating.  Just judge for yourself and be sure.

[MJL]

Scott, 

Thank you for opening my eyes to The Digital Picture website. I may get less work done today!

I agree, opionions and visions are subjective, but I knew by asking in this forum I would have new ideas tossed out to me and that helps greatly.

Thank you!

[ebiggs1]

I have no idea what you have read on the ole inner web but personally I would never buy that black version.  But, perhaps, it is because I am not a fan of the white one either.  There are just too many better options available.  For instance the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens for Canon.  It's black and it is better than the either 70-300 choices, IMHO, of course.

It offers way more and if a tele converter was in your future, you won't need it with this lens.  A big plus in my book.

Remember you can never have too much focal length.  And, secondly, people don't buy this type zoom for the short end.  

[ScottyP]

I point out I only compared the two mentioned lenses, and in that one comparison the 70-300 L was sharper.  Reading other comments I am reminded the question may not be so narrow. I personally would not go with either lens. 

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS L mk2 is an insanely good lens. It takes the 1.4x well too so you can basically have your 300 lens if you need it. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@ScottyP wrote:

I point out I only compared the two mentioned lenses, and in that one comparison the 70-300 L was sharper.  Reading other comments I am reminded the question may not be so narrow. I personally would not go with either lens. 

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS L mk2 is an insanely good lens. It takes the 1.4x well too so you can basically have your 300 lens if you need it. 

---

Well, Scotty  has come out and stated what I was hinting at.  I hesitated because the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is way out of your apparent budget range.  I wish I could tell you that the 70-200mm little brothers are just as good, but I just don't know.  I would expect them to have very good IQ, simply because they are L series.  The 70-200mm big brother really is "insanely good."

As for your original comparison, the L series lens would have to be the better choice.  I think the general direction of the comments is that there could be better lens choices out there.   I have no idea how close to wild horses you can get, but I would not expect it to be very close.  Wild animals need room, and must be respected.

I would advise one of the 70-200mm "L" lenses with a 1.4x extender, only because you have expressed reservations about weight, which almost rules out the 150-600mm choices.  But, you can always get used to carrying the weight, or use a monopod/tripod with it.

[ebiggs1]

"... you have expressed reservations about weight, which almost rules out the 150-600mm ..."

Not necessarily. If one uses a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens at approx 3 1/2 lbs with a EF 1.4X III you are nearing the weight of the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens.  If my feeble memory recalls correctly both will be in the 4 lb range. A few ounces maybe.

Of course the lesser 70-200's will weigh somewhat less.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... you have expressed reservations about weight, which almost rules out the 150-600mm ..."

Not necessarily. If one uses a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens at approx 3 1/2 lbs with a EF 1.4X III you are nearing the weight of the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens.  If my feeble memory recalls correctly both will be in the 4 lb range. A few ounces maybe.

Of course the lesser 70-200's will weigh somewhat less.

---

I think one of the 150-600mm lenses [Sigma or Tamron]  is the way to go for the apparent budget.  A wise man once said that you cannot ever have too much focal length when you're photograping nature.  Canon needs to fill this hole in their lineup.

I chose the Sigma, soley because of the Sigma dock.  I also do not use it without a tripod.  I still cannot get the hang of a tripod monopod.   I guess I am just way too tall to use one.  Using it doesn't feel natural, too much wobble.  It takes practice, I guess.

[ebiggs1]

"Canon needs to fill this hole in their lineup."

I think they are but who knows when? A 200-600mm f5.6-6.3??????????

I have and use all three of the contenders. All with out a monopod or tripod mosy of the time.  The "S" is a bit of a challenge and is better with support but short uses are possible.

The SIgma dock is nice I guess.  I have used it twice on my "S" and never on my "C".

"... you cannot ever have too much focal length ..."

How true. With these lenses you can use it if you need it but if you don't it doesn't hurt a bit.