Please help me choose the best telezoom lens

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

btaylor, I never owned the 100-400mm [],I have the 400 f/5.6 prime.


Nate,

[_MD_]

Thanks again guys, I guess I'll just rent out the 100-400mm lens and see how it behaves and what kind of image quality it produces at 400mm. If I won't like it, I will get a 70-200mm 2.8 IS USM and then a 500mm 2.8 prime.

[neuroanatomist]

...and then a 500mm 2.8 prime.

Who you gonna pay to build one of those for you?? []Canon has a 400mm f/2.8, and a 500mm f/4. If you really must have f/2.8 at 500mm, Sigma achieves that with their 200-500mm f/2.8 zoom lens, for a mere $30K. The 35 pound weight of the lens makes it quite convenient to use, as well.

[Daniel Browning]

From what I've been able to gather, a 70-200 lens is an equivalent of 10x magnification.

Actually, on your 7D, it's the equivalent of 2.2X - 6.4X magnification (WRT the actual angle of view, not the viewfinder.)

So I've looked at a bigger focal length lens such as Sigma 150-500 (Sigma also has 50-500), but most of the reviews say that the picture quality is not that great. So perhaps it will make sense to get a canon 70-200 f/2.8 on top of a canon 2x extender to achieve the maximum magnification?

The 70-200 f/2.8+2X TC looks better than the 50-500, but that's not saying much. The 150-500 is better, though.


Personally, I suggest the Canon 100-400. As far as telezooms go, it's very good.

[Fast Glass]

if you have time, I'd appreciate a 100% crop of either ducks eye/headin the example shot.






<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Sure hereit is.It is VERY SLIGHTLY out of focus but still better than most cheapo lenses. The shot was to good to trash justbecause of that.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/_5F00_MG_5F00_4030-crop.JPG[/img]


I made it a vertical crop so you can see the DOF better.


John.

[gunslinge]

I have the 100-400 and love it. 200mm is not enough for most wildlife





here a pic of a elk taken T 400MM - handheld, it is a little under exposed, as it was taken after sunset





[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/1000x500/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.92/elk-2.jpg[/img]

[neuroanatomist]

200mm is not enough for most wildlife

This was taken with an Olympus point-and-shoot (in my pre-Canon days),in<span>Parc Nationaldes<span>Volcans, Rwanda. 35mm focal length equivalent is 125mm. We were close<span>...


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/Gorilla.jpg[/img]

[gunslinge]

Ok you are right, I have a picture of a buffalo thru the window of my car, I was less than three feet from the buffalo's head, and used 17-50 mm lens set to 17mm, I - the camera mis focused and the picture is very soft, so I will not be posting it.

[Fast Glass]

Even ifcan use a shorter lens most of the time your picture will look better at least 200mm, but most of the time for practical reasons you need at least 400mm and above. Such as not getting close enoughto get a reasonably framed imageor getting so close your subject acts unatural, or getting more shots you would otherwise miss because it can take so long to approach a wild subject.


John.

[ShutterbugJohan]

Ok you are right, I have a picture of a buffalo thru the window of my car, I was less than three feet from the buffalo's head, and used 17-50 mm lens set to 17mm, I - the camera mis focused and the picture is very soft, so I will not be posting it.

LOL! I also agree on 200mm being too short for most wildlife. In my opinion 300mm on a crop body is also too short.