EF 300/400mm telephoto lens.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

Does anybody know whether canon produces any telephoto lens in that range (i.e. 300mm or higher). i have gone through the canon's official site. but couln't find any such non-"L" lenses. how good can be such non-"L" lens with IS and USM compared to a similar lens with "L". i am thinking of going for a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and a telephoto lens of aleast 300mm focal length and possibly a teleconvertor. but the "L" makes the lens too expensive. how is that combo. i am mainly interested in nature, wild life and close-up photography. any suggestions/comments would be appreciated.

thnx

-- sajeev (chack74@yahoo.co.in), January 11, 2002

Answers

I think, if you don't want to spend too much, the way to go is the Canon 100-300 USM, Canon 100-300F5.6L if you can find one. If you can spend a little more, the 70-200 F4L + 1.4X TC (canon) is a strong, flexible combo.

The longest non-L prime lens that canon presently make is the very expensive 400mm F4 DO IS. Next longest non-L is the 135 F2.8 SF.

Really though, it depends on what your budget actually is.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), January 11, 2002.


No, there are no Canon prime lenses of 300mm or longer which are not L-series. The 100-300 f/5.6L has been discontinued but it should be cheap, if you can locate one in stock. Of the three remaining non-L zooms which cover the 300mm focal length, all are said to be somewhat soft at 300mm, especially wide open. Of those, the choice would be between the 75-300 IS and the 100-300 f/4.5-5.6. I have the 100-300, it's not bad but it does loose sharpness at 300mm. The IS lens is more expensive. Neither of them would do well with an extender. You may be able to locate a 300mm f/4L (non-IS) or a 400mm f/5.6L in the used market for a good price. I have the 400mm and it is superb. The 300mm is said to be even sharper. The L-series telephoto lenses are among the best optics available, which is why they cost so much and they ARE worth it.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), January 11, 2002.

To correct my previous posting--the 400mm f/4DO is most certainly a non-L series lens and, of course, is over 300mm focal length. It is, however, in the L-series price range. Given your requirements, it is probably not of interest to you.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), January 11, 2002.

Over 200mm, the only way to correct chromatic aberration (color speading) is to use exotic glass or fluorite - and that puts you into "L" lens territory. All non-L lenses longer than 200mm will be noticeable softer than their "L" counterparts.

-- Dave Herzstein (dherzstein@juno.com), January 11, 2002.

I would point out that the only non-L over 200mm is the 400 F4 DO, as I already mentioned, and the DO element and single negative fluorite element (don't ask me why it's not L with Fluorite, but it isn't) apparently have a similar effect to exotic glass in correcting aberrations.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), January 12, 2002.


thanks a lot all of you. the only way to get cheaper lens is to go for a used one. but i am not sure how much should i trust the used one. or the seller. if there is any problem with the second hand product what should i do. the new ones give a guarantee. please help me to get out of this situation.

thnx

-- sajeev (chack74@yahoo.co.in), January 12, 2002.


Take a look at the Sigma 4/300 APO HSM. I owned one and got very good results with this lens. The only reason why I replaced it with a Canon 4/300L is the IS function only Canon offers. But for a very high price. Even a good lens is the Sigma 5.6/400 APO compared to it's price. You will find a lot of them second hand very cheap.

-- Martin (uboot67@yahoo.com), January 12, 2002.

Sajeev, look into buying used from a reputable seller. If you are located in the USA, Shutterbug magazine has a host of dealers with ads. Any reputable used dealer would offer some type of warranty and would stand by it as well. B&H Photo and Video in NYC now has a used department. I have ordered new equipment from them for years and trust them. Worldwide, I am sure there are lots of used photo dealers. You would have to research this.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), January 13, 2002.

Isaac, you're right - the fluorite element should make it an L lens. It's interesting to note that even Canon can't make up their mind whether it's an L or not - the press release announcing it refers to it as an L in one place and not an L in others!

-- Steve Dunn (steved@ussinc.com), January 14, 2002.

i think it is the DO element that made it not an "L" lens. the DO is known to create color abberations and canon probably didn't want to start a big contraversy over what really makes an "L" lens "L."

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), January 14, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ