# Q for Canon shooters. Next Lens?



## BasilFawlty (Jun 18, 2019)

Question for Cannon Shooters.  Assuming you have at lease one, maybe more, lens for your Canon Camera, what do you see as your next lens and why?


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 18, 2019)

28-300 or 35-350 to replace my dead lens.

Poss. a 100-400. 


BUT, I must rape, pillage and plunder a small NM town to do so.


----------



## BasilFawlty (Jun 19, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> 28-300 or 35-350 to replace my dead lens.
> 
> Poss. a 100-400.
> 
> ...



Ha!  I know a little town just a bit north-ish of Albuquerque  

I would absolutely love that new 100-400 L lens, but it's a bit on the pricey for me at this time  (Maybe someday but I'd need to sell a couple other lenses).  I've been thinking about a  (used or refurbished) Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro lens.  I'm pretty well covered with focal ranges from 14mm up to 600mm, but I don't have anything that would be good for Macro.


----------



## weepete (Jun 19, 2019)

70-200mm f4 L, because I don't have one xD.

Then a 24-70mm f2.8 L, then possibly a 100-400mm then maybe a 300mm f2.8.


----------



## RowdyRay (Jun 19, 2019)

BasilFawlty said:


> I've been thinking about a  (used or refurbished) Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro lens.  I'm pretty well covered with focal ranges from 14mm up to 600mm, but I don't have anything that would be good for Macro.



There's one in the buy and sell right now. 

 I'd like a 70-200mm f4 L, but would rather use that money towards a 500mm f4 L.


----------



## BasilFawlty (Jun 19, 2019)

RowdyRay said:


> I'd like a 70-200mm f4 L, but would rather use that money towards a 500mm f4 L.



I have that lens (the non-IS version).  In was the first "L" lens that I bought (not counting the 24-105 that came with my original 1st Gen 7D).  The non-IS f4 is very affordable and a really great lens in most situations.  I do wish mine had IS sometimes though.


----------



## ac12 (Jun 19, 2019)

I do not understand why the question.
If you are planing YOUR next lens, it should be based on what YOU need/want, NOT what someone else needs/wants.  
My needs/wants may be and probably is totally different than yours.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2019)

Canon's older EF 100mm f/2.8 IF macro, the non-IS model, has a rough-looking diaphragm shape when OOF specular highlights are prominent in the shot ... you might look into the lens carefully before buying a macro telephoto. This is the Internal Focus model, or the second iteration. The first was NOT internal focusing; the third 100mm EF macro is the IS-L version.

Canon has a really nice 100mm f/2 conventional tele, which has not been popular, despite being a good lens.


----------



## Soocom1 (Jun 19, 2019)

ac12 said:


> I do not understand why the question.
> If you are planing YOUR next lens, it should be based on what YOU need/want, NOT what someone else needs/wants.
> My needs/wants may be and probably is totally different than yours.


with respect to you....
I have done much the same in the past. 

My reason is so that I have feedback from people who have actually used it, and either reccomend or not reccomed something. 

But thats me.


----------



## ac12 (Jun 19, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > I do not understand why the question.
> ...



I still don't get it.
The OP basically cast a post for respond for any lens from Ultra-wide to Ultra-tele.
If I'm looking at a 1000mm lens, and he is thinking wide or macro, then my response is not relevant at all.
At least narrow it down.  
I'm looking for a macro lens, or wide lens, or . . .
Or, I am looking for help planning my lens kit.  Here is what I have and what I shoot/want to shoot.​


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2019)

I guess the OP was just looking for Lens talk. I see it as a perfectly natural forum behavior

If he was really looking for recommendations, perhaps he should've been more specific about what he already has. 

 Perhaps there will be someone who brings up a very intriguing lens.  The Canon company makes a wide variety of lenses from very short to very long, both zoom and prime.


----------



## BasilFawlty (Jun 19, 2019)

ac12 said:


> I do not understand why the question.
> If you are planing YOUR next lens, it should be based on what YOU need/want, NOT what someone else needs/wants.
> My needs/wants may be and probably is totally different than yours.



My purpose was not to solicit feedback for myself.  My purpose for the question was a simple one - just to have a fun conversation with fellow board members.  That's all.  (I have been running a car-related forum for 20 years and we have these kinds of conversations all the time).  It's just a way to get to know each other.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jun 19, 2019)

I really don't know what's next for a lens.  I think I've finally figured out what I'm going to do camera wise so maybe a wide or widish prime?  Will have to wait and see what piques my interest.


----------



## ronlane (Jun 19, 2019)

MY next lens for my Canon system is a 300mm f/2.8.


----------



## ac12 (Jun 19, 2019)

BasilFawlty said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > I do not understand why the question.
> ...



OK
There are so many posts asking for advice on next camera and lens, that I interpreted your post as asking for advice on your next lens.


----------



## ac12 (Jun 19, 2019)

Tamron 17-50/2.8
I don't like the zoom ring on the Sigma 17-50/2.8; short throw and significant turning effort needed.
BUT, the Tamron turns in the opposite direction than the Canon zooms.  Sigma turns in the same direction as Canon.


----------



## BasilFawlty (Jun 19, 2019)

ronlane said:


> MY next lens for my Canon system is a 300mm f/2.8.



That would be an awesome lens.  I have a 300mm f4L which is a really nice lens for the money (bought mine used).  One thing that struck me when I first got into digital photography was how much you must pay for that "1 stop" of extra brightness, especially true for telephoto lenses.   F0r example, the 300mm F4 on most of the "big" stores is around $1350, but to get just one stop of brightness - f2.8 at 300mm the price jumps to $6100!  Whew!  I bet that 300 2.8 would be a fantastic lens for shooting indoor sports, rodeos, etc.


----------



## BasilFawlty (Jun 19, 2019)

ac12 said:


> OK
> There are so many posts asking for advice on next camera and lens, that I interpreted your post as asking for advice on your next lens.



Sure, that's cool.


----------



## ronlane (Jun 20, 2019)

BasilFawlty said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > MY next lens for my Canon system is a 300mm f/2.8.
> ...



Shooting sports is expensive. But I am looking at used glass to lower the cost significantly (less than half that).


----------



## BasilFawlty (Jun 20, 2019)

ronlane said:


> Shooting sports is expensive. But I am looking at used glass to lower the cost significantly (less than half that).



Smart idea.  I've bought the following lenses used:  Canon 300mm f4 L,  Canon 50mm f4,  Canon 135 F2 L and the Rokinon 14mm F2.8 (for shooting stars).  (I guess you could say I also bought my 24-105 L used too since it came with the used 7D I bought back in 2013).  Anyway, I have bought a few new lenses too, but (so far) have not been disappointed by any of the used lenses I've purchased).  I've probably saved myself close to $1000 by purchasing well-maintained used lenses.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jun 20, 2019)

Yup used is the way to go if you can.
Most of my lenses are used. 
I do like to buy my bodies new since I tend to blow the expected shutter count on cameras away in the first year of use. lol



BasilFawlty said:


> Question for Cannon Shooters.  Assuming you have at lease one, maybe more, lens for your Canon Camera, what do you see as your next lens and why?



Fantasy - The new 200-400mm L lens with the integrated 1.4TC.

Reality - I'm waiting to see if I want to save and switch platforms completely or add a macro to the current lineup.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 20, 2019)

Tamron turns in the Nikon-Pentax-Leica direction...


----------



## Scott Whaley (Jun 20, 2019)

I have several lenses.  It depends on what and where I am shooting.   I use a 7d and a 5d.  Sometimes I use the stock lens with a fisheye macro lens attached to it.  Sometimes I use the Canon 300 zoom lens if I don't want to lag around a lot of weight.   I also use a Sigma 150-600 zoom and have recently started using the Sigma 150-600 sports  which is way heavier than any of the other ones.


----------



## ac12 (Jun 20, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Tamron turns in the Nikon-Pentax-Leica direction...



And even though they shoot Canon, I'm about to recommend the yearbook purchase some Tamron lenses.  
- 35-150/2.8-4 and/or 70-210/4, cuz Sigma does not have comparable lenses,
- 17-50/2.8 (cuz I am not particularly happy with the zoom ring on the Sigma lens).

In this case, none of the students zoom by muscle memory, as I do.  So I doubt that the zoom ring direction will make much if any difference to them.

I'm particularly excited about the 35-150/2.8-4. 
On an APS-C camera, it is the APS-C equivalent to the FF 70-200 that I have been looking for.


----------



## photoflyer (Jun 20, 2019)

Perhaps a new 100-400L.  I have a 10 year old 300 F4 and it is great but the IS is first generation.  I think that even though it is a zoom, the new 100-400 may be just as sharp and certainly more flexible.

But I just got a Celestron Evolution 6 and I need to learn astrophotography first.  One step at a time.

I like general discussion threads.


----------



## BasilFawlty (Jun 21, 2019)

photoflyer said:


> Perhaps a new 100-400L.  I have a 10 year old 300 F4 and it is great but the IS is first generation.  I think that even though it is a zoom, the new 100-400 may be just as sharp and certainly more flexible.
> 
> But I just got a Celestron Evolution 6 and I need to learn astrophotography first.  One step at a time.
> 
> I like general discussion threads.



I would love to get the new 100-400 L but hard to justify unless I sold my Sigma 150-600.  I've seen nothing but glowing reviews of the 2nd generation 100-400.

And speaking of astrophotography, I'm kinda surprised there isn't an astrophotography forum here.


----------



## photoflyer (Jun 22, 2019)

BasilFawlty said:


> I would love to get the new 100-400 L but hard to justify unless I sold my Sigma 150-600. I've seen nothing but glowing reviews of the 2nd generation 100-400.



I have always been intrigued by the 150-600.  The reviews have been positive.  No matter how good the 100-400, I think you would miss the extra 200mm.


----------



## Original katomi (Jun 22, 2019)

Er nothing really.  I have the range I use covered. If it’s a dream time and money no object and had to be used just on lens then
Upgrade the 70 200 l f4 non is to same but f2 is
Ditto 100 400 l  same but to twist action from push pull
Ditto the nifty fifty f1.8 plastic mount to same but the f 1.2 Matal mount


----------



## BasilFawlty (Jun 22, 2019)

photoflyer said:


> BasilFawlty said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to get the new 100-400 L but hard to justify unless I sold my Sigma 150-600. I've seen nothing but glowing reviews of the 2nd generation 100-400.
> ...



That's probably true.  The 150-600 I have is the contemporary model (not the much heavier Sports) and it's great for shooting birds at places like Bosque Del Apache.  I usually use it on a tripod with a gimbal head as it's a bit heavy for hand held.  The 100-400 would probably make hand-help shots a bit easier.


----------



## Scott Whaley (Jun 22, 2019)

I have the 150-600 Sigma and the 150-600 Sigma Sports lens.   The Sports lens is much larger and heavier.  My wife has the Canon 100-400 and I just got her a Sports lens.   She said it may be too heavy for her.


----------



## beagle100 (Jun 24, 2019)

Scott Whaley said:


> I have the 150-600 Sigma and the 150-600 Sigma Sports lens.   The Sports lens is much larger and heavier.  My wife has the Canon 100-400 and I just got her a Sports lens.   She said it may be too heavy for her.



all the larger telephoto lens are large and heavy - but gotta have it for wildlife and sports
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## ac12 (Jun 24, 2019)

Micro 4/3
A small 75-300 = huge 150-600 on a FF camera.  Same 3 - 12x magnification, in a smaller/lighter package  
Put that 150-600 on a m4/3, and you have 6 - 24x magnification.


----------



## photoflyer (Jun 25, 2019)

beagle100 said:


> all the larger telephoto lens are large and heavy - but gotta have it for wildlife and sports



Agreed but I have found that my 300mm F4 L with the 1.4 teleconverter on a crop sensor is "relatively" compact given its reach.  Of course it is only F5.6.


----------



## BasilFawlty (Jun 25, 2019)

beagle100 said:


> all the larger telephoto lens are large and heavy - but gotta have it for wildlife and sports
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*



That's why, when I bought my Sigma 150-600mm, I opted for the Contemporary version over the "Sport" since the former, at 4.3lbs, is a full two pounds lighter than the Sports, which weighs in at 6.3lbs.  I have not been disappointed.  Based on many comparison tests I've seen, the difference is IQ between the two is almost imperceptible unless you really zoom in and, at focal lengths I often shoot at (400-500mm) the contemporary in many tests I've seen is actually slightly better.  At 600mm, the Sport may have a slight edge, but only slight.  Here's a picture I took at Bosque Del Apache at 600mm (handheld).


----------



## freixas (Jun 25, 2019)

BasilFawlty said:


> That's why, when I bought my Sigma 150-600mm, I opted for the Contemporary version over the "Sport" since the former, at 4.3lbs, is a full two pounds lighter than the Sports, which weighs in at 6.3lbs. I have not been disappointed. Based on many comparison tests I've seen, the difference is IQ between the two is almost imperceptible unless you really zoom in and, at focal lengths I often shoot at (400-500mm) the contemporary in many tests I've seen is actually slightly better. At 600mm, the Sport may have a slight edge, but only slight.



Interesting. I've been thinking about the Sport version, but concerned about its weight. I do tend to shoot at the maximum focal length (currently 400mm + 1.4x extender = 560mm). If I had either Sigma lens, I would probably add the 1.4x extender, but might drop it in shaded conditions to get an extra stop.

I'll have to review the two lenses in more depth. Thanks.


----------



## BasilFawlty (Jun 25, 2019)

freixas said:


> Interesting. I've been thinking about the Sport version, but concerned about its weight. I do tend to shoot at the maximum focal length (currently 400mm + 1.4x extender = 560mm). If I had either Sigma lens, I would probably add the 1.4x extender, but might drop it in shaded conditions to get an extra stop.
> 
> I'll have to review the two lenses in more depth. Thanks.



Here's one review you might find helpful.

Sigma 150-600 Contemporary vs Sport

The Sport is clearly better built and weather resistant, but if you plan to hand hold a lot, that extra 2 pounds would be a definite consideration. Image quality seems to be a wash unless you really zoom in and pixel peep.  All I can say is, now that I have the Contemporary I don't regret for one second not buying the Sport (for nearly twice the price).  The C can be used on a ball or gimbal head quite nicely, but being able to shoot hand-held "relatively" well is a big plus.   Just for fun, here I am with my Siggy at Bosque Del Apache.



One more thing.  As pointed out in the article, the Contemporary stays at a wider aperture longer than the Sport.  From f5 to f5.6 they switch close to the same point, but when switching from 5.6 to 6.3, notice that the Contemporary stays at 5.6 all the way to 390mm whereas the Sport "stops down" much sooner at around 314mm.  So the Contemporary stays "brighter" for more of the zoom range.  That actually surprises me, given how much wider the Sport lens is.


----------

