I do a lot of wildlife photography and planespotting. Unfortunately right now my lens is the 75-300 EF, which is soft, horribly chromatically abberated, and slow. From what I have read, 70-200 is a great baseline telephoto lens: Plenty of zoom, and good for portraits. But they also are very expensive. I don't have 3000 dollars to spend on a lens, and looking at used lens's, they are still very steep. My local camera shop is quoting 800 dollars for a used Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L. Do you guys have any alternative suggestions?

Look at the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens or, the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens.

If you want a even cheaper lens that performs relatively well, the Tamron 70-210mm f/4 Di VC USD Lens is an option.

Also, what camera do you have? If you have a Canon R series body, that opens up the Canon RF series, and they have a pair of long prime lenses that are fairly cheap.

If you get the non-IS version, it should be cheaper. I sold mine for $500 CAD on Facebook Marketplace.

As stated above the standard (non-IS) EF 70-200 f/4 L should be only around $600 new (at least it is here in the UK and US prices are typically lower). Unfortunately if you want good image quality — without the softness, vignetting and CA — you're going to have to empty your wallet a bit more.

Karl

ThePointblank wrote:

Look at the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens or, the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens.

If you want a even cheaper lens that performs relatively well, the Tamron 70-210mm f/4 Di VC USD Lens is an option.

Also, what camera do you have? If you have a Canon R series body, that opens up the Canon RF series, and they have a pair of long prime lenses that are fairly cheap.

I have a Rebel T2i. Should have mentioned in my original most. Thank you for the suggestions

speedbird52 wrote:

My local camera shop is quoting 800 dollars for a used Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L

I would not pay $800 for a used EF 70-200 F/4L, unless it was the IS version. I bought my non-IS version for about $500 used. It's a fantastic lens; great quality through the range and extremely sharp, and just about the best value you can get for professional lenses.

JakTrax wrote:

Unfortunately if you want good image quality — without the softness, vignetting and CA — you're going to have to empty your wallet a bit more.

Sorry, just to clarify, are you saying the 70-200 is bad quality?

Nope, just that the OP is likely going to have to spend more than he/she wants to if he/she wants better results than those offered by the 75-300.

Sorry, I didn't find a suitable topic for my question. I am new to photography, but already thinking about buying a solid camera. I want not too cool and expensive, but also not cheap low quality product. I found several options on the HomeMakerGuide website, but I was still undecided on the choice. Can you tell me what is better to choose?

A solid camera is always a wiser option than a liquid one...

Joking aside there are so many parameters to consider: how fussy are you about image quality? Do you want a camera you can grow with or just a beginner model? How much do you want to spend? And would you rather spend it on the camera or lens(es)? Do you want an advanced point-and-shoot, a DSLR or mirrorless?

What you wish to shoot and where will also determine what lens(es) you'll need (unless you opt for a point-and-shoot, of course).

Canon 70-200mm f4 IS and non-IS versions are great in all aspects. Sharp, contrast, dream lens of many people.
My first L-class lens was a Canon 70-200mm f4 non IS on the crop sensor back in 2011.
I suggest you to try to get a Canon glass.

JakTrax wrote:

A solid camera is always a wiser option than a liquid one...

Joking aside there are so many parameters to consider: how fussy are you about image quality? Do you want a camera you can grow with or just a beginner model? How much do you want to spend? And would you rather spend it on the camera or lens(es)? Do you want an advanced point-and-shoot, a DSLR or mirrorless?

What you wish to shoot and where will also determine what lens(es) you'll need (unless you opt for a point-and-shoot, of course).

I am a beginner photographer, and therefore I think that a very difficult camera will be too much. I wanted to start with photographs of city views and landscapes outside the city while traveling. I think that for now I only want to buy a camera, but such that in the future it would be fashionable to change lenses on it (depending on how my hobby develops). The price range is around $ 2,000. It can be a little more expensive.

Sigma 100-400 contemporary (about 650 new, 400 or so used) is a way better choice for wildlife and plane spotting. A lot of the pictures from my database were taking with these lens and a canon 70d.

Hello!

I think you can easily get an EF 70-200mm lense for less than 600. The EF 70-200mm f/4L USM is greatly a nice lense for high-performance telephoto and zoom suitable for a wide range of tasks. Its compactness and light weight make it my favorite travel companion.

In my opinion it combines compactness and light weight with widest aperture 1:4. Internal focusing and a ring USM allow fast and quiet automatic focusing. The forelimb remains rigid during focusing, facilitating the use of polarizing filters. The tripod mount, available as an accessory, is identical to that for the EF 300 mm f/4L USM (but not the EF 300 mm f/4L IS USM).

The TAMRON SP G2 70 mm - 200 mm f/2.8 Di is much more high prized.

But maybe you can also get a second hand cheaper version in good condition.

Thanks a lot for your recommendations! It is very pleasant to be in the company of caring people! I think I can learn a lot of interesting things here.

ftorre82 wrote:

Sigma 100-400 contemporary (about 650 new, 400 or so used) is a way better choice for wildlife and plane spotting. A lot of the pictures from my database were taking with these lens and a canon 70d.

I use Sigma 100-400, too, on Nikon D800. Absolutely a decent telephoto lens for aircraft spotting. The image quality and sharpness at 400mm may not as good as Nikon's & Canon's 100-400, but you can't beat the price since it costs less than 1/2.

LeeYangzao wrote:

ftorre82 wrote:

Sigma 100-400 contemporary (about 650 new, 400 or so used) is a way better choice for wildlife and plane spotting. A lot of the pictures from my database were taking with these lens and a canon 70d.

I use Sigma 100-400, too, on Nikon D800. Absolutely a decent telephoto lens for aircraft spotting. The image quality and sharpness at 400mm may not as good as Nikon's & Canon's 100-400, but you can't beat the price since it costs less than 1/2.

At 300mm and above stop the aperture down to f9/f10 and you'll get the sharpest results.

I picked up the Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 LD DI SP, (Non stabilized) for $400. First shots on it were good but unimpressive, I have to say images of birds and the like are a very fuzzy. The weather was also less than ideal I will say in fairness to the lens. CA is minor.

Are there better lenses at this price point? I was very impressed with the G2 Tamron when I tried it, and as such had high hopes for this older model

The EF 70-200 f/4 L would have been my first choice, without doubt. It can be bought new for around $680, so maybe around $400-$500 used. Has no IS but it's optically one of the finest lenses ever produced. Was recommended several times above so I'm not sure why you went with the Tamron...

JakTrax wrote:

The EF 70-200 f/4 L would have been my first choice, without doubt. It can be bought new for around $680, so maybe around $400-$500 used. Has no IS but it's optically one of the finest lenses ever produced. Was recommended several times above so I'm not sure why you went with the Tamron...

I had a great experience with the new version and assumed the optics would be similar in the older one, which proved false. It was also substantially cheaper than the offers on the F/4.

Fair enough. However had you asked the question here many could have told you that Tamron's G2 series is way superior to their older models.

How is the Gen 1 Canon 100-400L in comparison to the 70-200? I know it is slower, and the zoom is clunky, but considering I intend to do wildlife photography when not planespotting it would probably make sense for me to have the range available. Sample photos of the lens look pretty decent to me as well

The original EF 100-400L is decent but unfortunately renowned for its copy variation — in other words, if you get a bad one it'll be pretty soft, likely for much of the zoom range. I went through 3 before settling on one that was pretty close to perfect... until the IS went in it after about 2 years (another issue with the lens and a very expensive repair!). In the end I sold it in order to fund the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS MkII. The 70-200s certainly produce sharper and more consistent results than the first 100-400L.

If you were intent on getting a 100-400 I'd recommend saving for the MkII (it's far superior), or going with the Sigma version (which is apparently about on par with a decent copy of the 100-400L MkI).

With superzooms the old adage 'you get what you pay for' really is relevant. The less you pay, the less quality will be delivered.

For pure bang for buck the original EF 70-200 f/4 L is absolutely unbeatable. It's tack-sharp pretty much from corner to corner, across the entire zoom/aperture range.

speedbird52 wrote:

How is the Gen 1 Canon 100-400L in comparison to the 70-200? I know it is slower, and the zoom is clunky, but considering I intend to do wildlife photography when not planespotting it would probably make sense for me to have the range available. Sample photos of the lens look pretty decent to me as well

I liked my old 100-400L Mk1. It had the handy feature of being able to zoom and focus at the same time (if you needed to use manual focus for any reason), due to the push-pull zoom.

Though I've since moved on to the 100-400L Mk2, I don't have anything bad to say about the Mk1.

Honestly, for wildlife, 200mm seems awfully short. Whenever I've been taking photos of birds or other animals, I've usually wished I had a 600 or 800mm lens.

My advice: first determine what focal length you need. Then look at your options.

JakTrax wrote:

The original EF 100-400L is decent but unfortunately renowned for its copy variation — in other words, if you get a bad one it'll be pretty soft, likely for much of the zoom range. I went through 3 before settling on one that was pretty close to perfect... until the IS went in it after about 2 years (another issue with the lens and a very expensive repair!). In the end I sold it in order to fund the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS MkII. The 70-200s certainly produce sharper and more consistent results than the first 100-400L.

If you were intent on getting a 100-400 I'd recommend saving for the MkII (it's far superior), or going with the Sigma version (which is apparently about on par with a decent copy of the 100-400L MkI).

With superzooms the old adage 'you get what you pay for' really is relevant. The less you pay, the less quality will be delivered.

For pure bang for buck the original EF 70-200 f/4 L is absolutely unbeatable. It's tack-sharp pretty much from corner to corner, across the entire zoom/aperture range.

My local camera shop has one that looks in good condition and seems to work, but is selling for 700 dollars. (Substantially cheaper than other places) should I safely assume that is one of the "soft" lenses?

speedbird52 wrote:

JakTrax wrote:

The original EF 100-400L is decent but unfortunately renowned for its copy variation — in other words, if you get a bad one it'll be pretty soft, likely for much of the zoom range. I went through 3 before settling on one that was pretty close to perfect... until the IS went in it after about 2 years (another issue with the lens and a very expensive repair!). In the end I sold it in order to fund the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS MkII. The 70-200s certainly produce sharper and more consistent results than the first 100-400L.

If you were intent on getting a 100-400 I'd recommend saving for the MkII (it's far superior), or going with the Sigma version (which is apparently about on par with a decent copy of the 100-400L MkI).

With superzooms the old adage 'you get what you pay for' really is relevant. The less you pay, the less quality will be delivered.

For pure bang for buck the original EF 70-200 f/4 L is absolutely unbeatable. It's tack-sharp pretty much from corner to corner, across the entire zoom/aperture range.

My local camera shop has one that looks in good condition and seems to work, but is selling for 700 dollars. (Substantially cheaper than other places) should I safely assume that is one of the "soft" lenses?

I would avoid it.

You could get a brand new Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary for about $900 USD, or the Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 for about $1200 USD. Both are far better lenses, with good image quality, and a long zoom range.

Take your camera body in and ask if you can give it a go — after all, you need to know that what you're buying performs satisfactorily! Just give it a quick whirl at 100mm, 250mm, and 400mm, and at various apertures (wide open, f/5.6 and f/8 should do). No more than 10 minutes of their (and your) time. Take the images home and do some pixel-peeping — if you're happy, splash the cash.

Just be aware that the IS system in these lenses is prone to failure, and will cost about $300-$400 to repair if it goes wrong. It might be fine for years but it is a known issue.

Personally I'd wait however long it takes to get the MkII, or go for the Sigma version. I can't stress enough that, 99.9% of the time, you get what you pay for. The MkII might be a lot of money but you can be confident that you have the very best 100-400 ever made. In my opinion the MkI is too temperamental and it's a flawed design.

I just bought the F/4L 70-200. Night and day difference to the Tamron, don't even mention the EF 70-300 kit. I think I finally understand why lenses are so expensive. I couldn't ask for a sharper lens, CA is a non issue, and the autofocus is insanely quiet and fast. The build quality is impeccable, and it still manages to be comparable in weight to my old 70-300. The autofocus is pretty accurate too. This is the first lens in which I can actually use live view mode. My only complaint is that when it came to birds, there were a lot of situations where the lens would focus on the wrong thing, or not focus on the birds face. To be honest, I think it might be more of a problem with my body (A Rebel T2i).
A 400MM would be nicer for wildlife, but 200 is good enough for what I do. After just a day of shooting I cannot endorse the F4L 30-200 enough. Thanks for all the advice!

speedbird52 wrote:

My only complaint is that when it came to birds, there were a lot of situations where the lens would focus on the wrong thing, or not focus on the birds face.

Are you using multiple AF points? Try using a single AF point, and place it squarely on the area you want in focus.

The camera will be letting you down more than the lens, however DSLR technology is now beginning to show its age when focussing on small, erratically-moving objects. The 7DII and 90D are better suited to action/wildlife photography.

I'm glad you like your new lens anyway — what it lacks in range it certainly makes up for in image quality! What did you pay for it? New or used?

Karl

vikkyvik wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

My only complaint is that when it came to birds, there were a lot of situations where the lens would focus on the wrong thing, or not focus on the birds face.

Are you using multiple AF points? Try using a single AF point, and place it squarely on the area you want in focus.

I am using the center point

JakTrax wrote:

The camera will be letting you down more than the lens, however DSLR technology is now beginning to show its age when focussing on small, erratically-moving objects. The 7DII and 90D are better suited to action/wildlife photography.

I'm glad you like your new lens anyway — what it lacks in range it certainly makes up for in image quality! What did you pay for it? New or used?

Karl

Used, $430 before taxes. No internal damage, but the lens rings were filthy with a grime that I have come to learn was salt deposits from sweaty hands. A toothbrush and soapy water fixed that. Mirrorless is not too popular with wildlife photographers for some reason, but I am considering the transition

vikkyvik wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

My only complaint is that when it came to birds, there were a lot of situations where the lens would focus on the wrong thing, or not focus on the birds face.

Are you using multiple AF points? Try using a single AF point, and place it squarely on the area you want in focus.

Use a single AF point but, use one that is over the birds eye. That way you should get the head and the body of the bird in focus. I use this set up on my 70-300L.

Steve

speedbird52 wrote:

vikkyvik wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

My only complaint is that when it came to birds, there were a lot of situations where the lens would focus on the wrong thing, or not focus on the birds face.

Are you using multiple AF points? Try using a single AF point, and place it squarely on the area you want in focus.

I am using the center point

That's good (in my opinion). How large is the bird, and how far away?

speedbird52 wrote:

Mirrorless is not too popular with wildlife photographers for some reason, but I am considering the transition

The thing with mirrorless is that it has advanced greatly only in the past 1-2 years, and many DSLRs owners still perceive it to be the same sluggish technology it was 4-5 years ago. It's also psychological, with some DSLR owners becoming anti-mirrorless because they feel it is quickly rendering their kit obsolete (which is nonsense).

Canon's latest mirrorless AF is far better for sports and wildlife than any DSLR, save for the latest iteration of the 1D. That's not to say the AF in bodies like the 7DII and 90D is poor; just that the on-sensor AF you get with mirrorless is so incredibly good.

Using a single AF point with your particular DSLR is good advice, however each time your subject leaves the area covered by that AF point it'll focus elsewhere if it can. In other words, it can be tricky tracking erratically-moving subjects. Cameras such as the 90D have a mode which clumps a small area of AF points together and uses them to better track a fiddly subject. Naturally the more AF points the camera is using, the less reliable each becomes but this mode strikes a good balance between accuracy and consistency. I'm pretty sure the 90D also has a dedicated tracking mode, although talk of such modes is perhaps moot since your Rebel T2i doesn't feature them.

Karl

vikkyvik wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

vikkyvik wrote:

Are you using multiple AF points? Try using a single AF point, and place it squarely on the area you want in focus.

I am using the center point

That's good (in my opinion). How large is the bird, and how far away?

A blue heron roughly 20-50 feet away

JakTrax wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

Mirrorless is not too popular with wildlife photographers for some reason, but I am considering the transition

The thing with mirrorless is that it has advanced greatly only in the past 1-2 years, and many DSLRs owners still perceive it to be the same sluggish technology it was 4-5 years ago. It's also psychological, with some DSLR owners becoming anti-mirrorless because they feel it is quickly rendering their kit obsolete (which is nonsense).

Canon's latest mirrorless AF is far better for sports and wildlife than any DSLR, save for the latest iteration of the 1D. That's not to say the AF in bodies like the 7DII and 90D is poor; just that the on-sensor AF you get with mirrorless is so incredibly good.

Using a single AF point with your particular DSLR is good advice, however each time your subject leaves the area covered by that AF point it'll focus elsewhere if it can. In other words, it can be tricky tracking erratically-moving subjects. Cameras such as the 90D have a mode which clumps a small area of AF points together and uses them to better track a fiddly subject. Naturally the more AF points the camera is using, the less reliable each becomes but this mode strikes a good balance between accuracy and consistency. I'm pretty sure the 90D also has a dedicated tracking mode, although talk of such modes is perhaps moot since your Rebel T2i doesn't feature them.

Karl

I am definitely going to look into mirrorless more (Maybe even rent one to try it out) since it looks like Canons 7D replacement is going to be the R7, a mirrorless camera. To be honest I am hoping to like the mirrorless cameras because Canons APS-C DSLRs are lacking compared to the competition to say the least, and I would rather not have to sell my glass if I choose to switch bodies

EF glass works seamlessly with RF bodies and the adapter at the moment is often included with an RF camera. But I think your current kit will serve you well for the next couple of years (bearing in mind you've only just splashed out on two lenses!).

I'm not so sure about the R7; it has been rumoured but several sources claim Canon is not interested (at the moment) in developing a mirrorless version of its 7D. Would be great if they did as it'd certainly appeal to those who want a bit more reach out of their lenses.

It's important to understand that, while mirrorless has become more capable than DSLR in many ways, the technology still needs to improve in some areas. The optical viewfinders of DSLRs are superior to even the very best electronic viewfinders found in the most expensive mirrorless cameras, and I can't see that changing any time soon without a revolutionary advancement in technology.

I prefer mirrorless overall (superior AF, more compact, better image quality due to decreased flange distance and improved lenses) as the annoyances are only minor, BUT I've kept hold of my DSLRs as there are still times I actually prefer them.

I personally run with a EOS R, but I'm planning on getting the R5 later on this year.

I have access to DSLR's, such as the 5D Mark IV and the 7D Mark II, but I vastly prefer the R; image quality is excellent, AF tracking is effective, and it opens up Canon's ever growing suite of RF mount lenses.