The 100-400L (new version) is a fantastic lens. If you are an avid bird and wildlife shooter and get out quite often to photograph them, this would be the lens for you. I have a friend who shoots this lens and she is a marvelous wildlife photographer. She has posted here previously as Judy 2011. However, at that time she had the original 100-400L. She handholds it, so that should not be a problem.
Thanks for your time, Steve. I went searching for your friend, Judy’s photos. Wow! She does beautiful work! Glad to know she can handhold that lens.
Marg
I'd keep the Canon 50, Sigma 18-250 and sell the rest.

I have the 70-300 II and have tried some bird photography. I think the max 300 mm multiplied by the 1.6 apparent magnification factor of the APS-C sensor give you all the
"reach" you can handle with an effective 480mm with autofocus and IS. It has an indicator which can assist in estimating Depth of Field, showing effective focal length and an estimate of the probability of camera shake at the current settings. I don't use this much, but I think it could be helpful for a less experienced user. It is manageable, I had the previous version for many years and this lens is superior in all ways. And it is smaller and lighter than the "L" series alternative. That "L" 70-300 lens costs about $1300 new vs about $600 for the EF II. Weight is 37oz for the "L"vs 25 oz. for the EF II. Close focusing is about the same but nearly 3 feet, so I haven't been able to use my lens for the kind of detail or macro work I like.

Another consideration might be the Ef 200 2.8 L. It weighs in at a manageable 27 oz. Can use the 1.4 and 2X adapters while still maintaining Auto focus. Closest focus is a whopping 5 feet. Cost is $800 new.

What I have found, since I have upgraded from a 16 MP to a 24 MP sensor, is that I have more ability to crop into my frame to make the subject appear to fill the frame. Perhaps with the price reductions on my body the 77D witht eh DIGIC * processor and improved ISO performance, you may add a number of capabilities by choosing the 200 "L" or the EF 70-300 II and a 77 D for close to the total cost of the 70-300 "L." Then you get to sell the T4, and everything but the 50mm.

Astonishingly, opinionated me doesn't have an opinion on the 70-200 option. Except that the arithmetic on the effective focal lengths ("Reach") vs. the Price of the II model don't seem to make too much sense. An option on the 70-200 issue is the f4 "L" version which is available used in the $6-700 price range and gets great reviews.

This topic has been covered exhaustively here on the Hog. You're not teh only one who is trying to find a reasonable way to get the Image Quality, "Reach" and size/weight/price "sensibility" needed to allow effective wildlife and sports photography. I suggest you use the search feature and particularly look for answers from Alan Myers (Amphoto). His answers are the most comprehensive and he's tested almost everything he posts about.

These costs and prices and total weights seem to get quite unwieldy for senior men and women.

Good luck, Marge.
C

I would dump the Sigma lens and the 75-300mm (I'm assuming the latter is the "III" without USM or IS, which is Canon's cheapest and least capable telephoto zoom).

You won't get much $ for them... But, hey, every little bit helps. Keep the 18-55mm for now, as your wider lens and a relatively small and light general purpose "walk around" lens. If you use the 50mm for low light work and shallow depth of field effects in portraits, by all means keep it too. Assuming it's the 50mm f/1.8 "II", it's also not a pricey lens and is compact and lightweight. (Eventually you might consider upgrading the 18-55mm too: If you want a faster lens, get the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM... Or if you want a bit wider lens, get the EF-S 15-85mm IS USM... either would be a very nice "step up". Or if you want really wide, the EF-S 10-18mm IS STM is inexpensive, relatively small & light. Or, you mention shooting macro... get the Tamron SP 60mm Di II lens... it's one of the few macro with a larger f/2 aperture, so could replace your 50mm f/1.8 as a portrait lens, too.)

Between the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II with 2X III Extender OR the 100-400mm IS USM II... definitely the latter.

Currently the 70-200/2.8 II and 100-400 II are selling for the same price: $1800. But by the time you add a 2X III Extender to the former, you have spent an extra $429. And for that you will get less image quality and heavier rig that doesn't focus as closely. The 100-400 II is a better option that has superb image quality throughout it's range and focuses close enough to give you nearly 1/3 life size, and weighs about 3.5 lb. The 70-200mm alone weighs a little less... four whole ounces... about 3.25 lb. But once you add the 2X III you are close to 4 lb. total. I wouldn't consider using any other 2X with that lens, for best possible image quality.... though it won't be as good as the 100-400mm without any teleconverter.

By the time you add a 2X to the 70-200mm you have an effective 140-400mm f/5.6 throughout. The 100-400mm is f/4.5-5.6 variable aperture... not exactly a "fast" lens, but it maintains f/4.5 to 134mm, f/5 from 135mm to 311mm, and only drops to f/5.6 from 312mm to 400mm. So, at the focal lengths up to 311mm it's 1/3 to 2/3 stops faster than the 70-200 + 2X combo.

Incidentally, if you ever trade up cameras, many of the newer models (7DII, 80D, 77D, T7i) can autofocus the 100-400mm WITH a 1.4X teleconverter. So you could potentially have up to 560mm effective focal length, longer than would ever be possible with the 70-200mm + 2X . However, the 100-400mm II + 1.4X also ends up a bit over 4 lb. total.

I shoot with 100-400mm hand held a lot. It's only 1/4 lb. heavier than the 70-200/2.8 II (I use the earlier version of that lens as well as the smaller/lighter 70-200mm f/4 IS USM... but both those 70-200s are getting a lot less use since I got the 100-400mm). 100-400mm does start to get heavy after a while. So I often use it on a tripod with gimbal mount. Or at least on a monopod. Most people who use lenses like these for anything more than half an hour to an hour shooting will likely want to use a tripod.

One thing about the 100-400mm II is that it's tripod mounting foot is a neat design, but doesn't work very well with Arca-Swiss style quick release lens plates. There are replacement tripod feet available though (Really Right Stuff, Kirk Photo, Hejnar Photo and others). Those have built in Arca-Swiss style dovetail and work well with compatible tripod heads.... or are essential if using a gimbal type head or adapter. Those replacement tripod feet add around $100 to the cost of the lens (but take the place of an Arca-Swiss plate that would cost $35 to $50 anyway). I hope Canon takes note of what Tamron has been doing lately.... designing their lenses with tripod mounting rings to have a built-in Arca-style dovetail.... no lens plate needed.

You can see for yourself that the image quality of the 100-400mm is better than the combo of 70-200 & 2X:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=1198&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=2

Even though the 70-200 II and 2X III work better together than any similar combo that Canon has made to date, the 100-400mm offers better IQ, is faster (larger aperture), is closer focusing and weighs less.

Read the entire review of the 100-400mm II here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

The 70-200mm f/2.8 II review is here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

What will really stun you is comparing the IQ of the 100-400mm II with that of your current EF 75-300mm III: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=776&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

Both the 70-200 and 100-400 are very well made... pro quality.

I mostly use my 100-400 II for sports, but occasionally for a bird, too. This kildeer didn't like me being close to her nest. These were hand held at 400mm and wide open at f/5.6 (on 7DII, an APS-C camera like your T4i):



With a large lens like either of these, you might want to add battery grip BG-E8 to your T4i to improve balance with the heftier lens on a relatively small, light camera. The grip also gives you a secondary set of controls, which are nice to have when shooting in vertical/portrait orientation. BG-E8 are still available new and widely avail. used for about half price (it fits T2i, T3i, T4i and T5i too.... T6i and T6s use a different grip.... and, oddly, Canon has not produced a similar grip for T7i or 77D, neither of which are designed to accommodate a grip either.... the 80D is the "lowest" current model capable of being fitted with a grip).

Thanks for letting us help you spend your money!

The Canon 24-105mm lens might serve you well. It's a general purpose lens.

Shooting macro, however, may require a fixed focal length lens in addition. When I did macro, I found a tripod most useful.

Note that Sigma makes a 24-105mm lens, too, at lower cost but a lens that produces superb results.

You did not ask about a camera. Let me say, though, that you may wish to consider upgrading to the Canon T7i, a big improvement over the T4i. You could find it used or refurbished for lower cost.

Good luck.

I love my 100-400L II, but it is a big lens. Two other options to consider are the 300 f/4L IS and the 400 f/5.6L. The first provides IS but the lens "seems" lightweight in that it's physically larger than it seems heavy. The 400 doesn't have IS, but again is not as heavy as it's size seems. These are lens options to zooms should you find you'd be shooting at the maximum zoom focal length anyway due to the distance to the subject. The 300 provides an option to be extended to 420mm with 1-stop loss to f/4.5 that retains all autofocus points on your camera body and provides IS. It's also a lot cheaper than the two zoom ideas.

Keep the 50mm and the 18-250 and give up the 18-55 and the 75-300, at least that is my 2 cents worth.


The 400mm f/5.6 is only about 2 1/2 pounds very light for a super tele, but that is largely because it only has 7 elements where most of the others have close to double that. The lens is exceedingly sharp but the down side is the minimum focusing distance is over 11 feet, a possible draw back if you are trying to shoot bird feeders in the back yard. In my opinion if you can manage the 400 and maintain fast shutter speeds it is a sharper lens than the 300 but the 300 does offer IS and is easier to manage.

If your budget can afford it the 100-400 IS II is a great lens, albeit heavier than either of the primes and not as sharp at either 300mm or 400mm but awfully close it is certainly more versatile.

Hello! I could have written this email too. I do have the 70-200 and I do have a tripod. I'm also going to be 70 this month and am in excellent health. That being said I don't like to use the tripod but when I try to hand hold the camera and lens, it's starting to get heavy. By heavy I mean while my hands don't shake when I'm not holding something, when I am holding the camera with the lens both hands start shaking. So I have become resigned that when I shoot with my photography group, to bring along a travel tripod and a cable release. It's just the easiest way to get the shots for me without increasing the film speed. Unfortunately, as we get older, something has to give. So I would base my decision on the type of photos, I want to take, what settings I need in order to get the absolute best shots that I am capable of getting, (which aren't that terrific but still...) and then go to the manufacturer's website and add up the weight of the components that I'm interested in having. And then I have to make a choice. Do I want increase the film speed, I do like shooting at 100 200 max... do I want to get a different lens that's lighter, or what? I had to make these choices and perform this process on my recent trip this past summer to Alaska. I asked the participants here which of my lens to take. They told me which lens they would take and showed pictures as well! I listened to them but then I did have to add one more lens that I didn't want to leave home. At the risk of being a downer, we are at that age where it doesn't get better as we get older. The best we can hope for is that it stays the same. Just my two cents worth. I hope it helps.

I have a 70 - 200 f4 and the 100 - 400 ll. I use them both on full frame cameras, a 5DSR and a new EOS R. I sold a 70 - 200 2.8 when I purchased the 100 - 400, and bought the 70 - 200 f4 because is is light and easy to handle. I love the 100 - 400. It is very sharp and has very good stabilization. I suggest that you do not need the extender, and it will cause more trouble that it is worth. Remember on a crop sensor camera the 400 mm lens is the equivalent of a 620 mm lens. You will have trouble hand holding that lens without the extender. You wrote that you do not like to use a tripod. If you use the extender you will have to shoot at a very high ISO even in sunlight to utilize a high enough shutter speed to obtain quality images. Even the 200 mm on your camera will be like shooting with a 320 mm lens at that will be hard to hand hold. I suggest you try the 100 - 400 II, the I does not have high quality stabilization. I would buy it unless you feel it is to heavy to carry. In that case I would seriously look at the 70 - 200 f4 is. It is an "L" lens. It is relatively light and very sharp.

Marge and George: I have the Canon 70-200 f4 L which I got for $599 new and this sale happens every so often at B&H and Adorama. It is a VERY sharp lens. I am particularly impressed by how sharp it is at f4.

For birds, I have my lightweight Olympus OM-D-E-M5 with a Tamron SP 500 f8 mirror lens mounted and ready on a Canon monopod. Equivalent FOV is 1000 mm on this mirrorless and the focus assist enables me to get a critcal focus in <3 seconds. The in body image stabilization on the Olympus EM5 works very well. DrJ