Lens advice (Page 3): This is another of Canon's very good lenses. It seems to find its way in event and landscape photography. You will outgrow it very quickly if your intentions are...

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

bhad wrote:

I shoot a variety of photos primarily wildlife and nature. I am considering this lens for my Canon Rebel T5.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
Can those on this forum give pros and cons of this lense?
Thank you!

BTW- the loons have returned to north-central Minnesota.🙂

This is another of Canon's very good lenses. It seems to find its way in event and landscape photography. You will outgrow it very quickly if your intentions are to shoot only wildlife. Mine has been a shelf-queen since the version II of the EF100-400mm arrived. I'd sell it to the "right' offer. As an option consider the version without IS. You can save money by learning to shoot (outdoors) using faster shutter speeds where IS is inconsequential. Have fun with it, you could get very creative with that lens and your T5.

cochese

For $600-$700 you can get Sigma's 150-600 Contemporary lens. This will give you the reach you are looking for for wildlife, is decently sharp, will focus with your T5. It is larger than the 100-400 II from canon although it is half the price.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

It has limited range for wildlife unless you can get close.

mrtaxi Loc: Old Westbury NY, Fort Lauderdale, FL

Go with the canon 100-400L instead. For nature and wildlife the 70-200mm even on a crop sensor is too short.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

ggab wrote:

I used mine, before I bought the 100-400 IS L USM II, to shoot soccer games along with my 70-200 f/2.8 III.
Now it is a back up.

The OP has a T5 and likes to shoot wildlife and nature.
I would suggest looking into a used 7DII and keep the T5 as back up or sell the T5.
Getting a EF400mm F/5.6 would allow for this, financially as would the 70-300. Just a thought.

The T5 is just great. Lenses are a much better investment. Much easier and cheaper to upgrade the camera as you need more capability. You have to go pretty high end cameras to spend as much as a lens and a lens will outlast several generations of cameras. That is why I would go the lens first. Then when you feel the camera is possibly lacking upgrade it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

bhad wrote:

I shoot a variety of photos primarily wildlife and nature. I am considering this lens for my Canon Rebel T5.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
Can those on this forum give pros and cons of this lense?
Thank you!

BTW- the loons have returned to north-central Minnesota.🙂

For what you want, there are no pros ....

Cons - expensive, large/heavy, too short,

Look at the 70-300 IS II nano - about $550 most places - GREAT lens. -OR - the 100-400 II if you have lots of money to blow ....another alternative is the Tamron 100-400 - about $600 most places a very GOOD lens.
.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

bhad wrote:

Is it this lens you are recommending?
canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6l is ii usm

Yupper!

ft Loc: New York, USA

The lens is a great lens — but not really suited for wildlife shooting.
I used the Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L is usm ii lens on a safari w/ crop sensor camera and I found it excellent. For wildlife, you’ll appreciate the longer reach.

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

I had the 70-200 2.8 and found it excellent but too heavy for the type of photography I do, nature and wildlife. Got the f/4 IS version and couldn’t be happier. Definitely not long enough for most wildlife so I use the 100-400 II most of the time. Although I still use the 70-200, the 100-400 is on my camera 80% of the
time. There is a plus to the 100-400 in that it allows you to get in close even at 400mm. In conclusion I’d look seriously at the Canon 100-400 II.

taffspride Loc: Originally Wales, now the Sunshine State

For wildlife or birds a 200mm lens will not give you the range you would wish, even with a teleconverter, I use a 100-400 Sony, with a 2x converter. and am very happy with it.

redorb

Just an aside, if you are an Sony a7 shooter there’s a zoom feature in camera where I believe doubles the length of your lens. The downside is you have to shoot jpeg only.

taffspride Loc: Originally Wales, now the Sunshine State

Thank you, I did know about it, but don't use it since like most, I shoot in Raw.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Take it from me, 100-400 is much better for wildlife!
70-200 doesn’t cut it😖

ggab Loc: ?

agillot wrote:

500mm for wildlife would be minimum

Baloney
Just saying.
400mm, with a 1.4extender and a crop sensor camera gives an effective field of view of nearly 900mm.
400mm with a Full Frame Camera and no extender has given me a lot of really good wildlife shots as well as BIF shots.
Heck, my 300mm f/2.8 and f/4 lenses on my crop sensor camera have given me very good wildlife and BIF shots.

It all depends upon how close you can get, the size of the wildlife etc.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

cochese wrote:

For $600-$700 you can get Sigma's 150-600 Contemporary lens. This will give you the reach you are looking for for wildlife, is decently sharp, will focus with your T5. It is larger than the 100-400 II from canon although it is half the price.

Yes, the Sigma is half the price and half the image quality especially at the telephoto end. But, you get what you pay for. Yes, the Sigma is CHEAPER at half the price.
If the OP is looking to save a buck, then buy the Sigma but be prepared for what you get at 600mm. This lens has NEVER tested well at that end, does OK at the shorter end though.