NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

I thank all of you for your comments we will see how flexible they really are on price on Thursday when I start classes.

This thread has now generated my next question extender 1.4 or 2.0 since both are the same price thru Canon I,ll have to search the hog and see what I can find

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

If you are buying either lens that you have mentioned, DO NOT BUY an extender. They do not play well. The 1.4x works OK with the 70-200. Extenders seem to work well with constant aperture glass.

J. R.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Forget either of those lenses and look for a good used 300mm f/4 or 400mm f/5.6 prime. You will have much sharper images with either of those prime lenses.

londonfire Loc: NY to NC

I have the DO lens and I usually use it at a local animal park. I think it's very sharp and focuses well. They were a very expensive lens at introduction and I think they're a great buy at what they're selling for today. I know I would never get rid of mine for $400.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

I feel exactly the same!

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

A small correction that I think should be included to the above.

If I have counted correctly, Canon has made 9 lenses in this approximate range in the EF family. Six have been 75 - 300 mm lenses, they are the lowest price, the least good in any sense, and I think it is these that are referred to as the bottom of the range.

There have only been three EF 70 - 300 lenses, all are accepted as decent, but clearly improve over the price range. The two the OP has available are both considered quite good, not in the L class, but the DO especially appears to be a good price and worth considering, although not perfect as mentioned earlier as a result of the gen 1 DO tech.

This is a good resource for older Canon lenses and cameras: http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/lens-ef-series.html?1933?2015?Americas?.html

Good luck

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The 70-300mm "DO" or "Diffractive Optics" is quite compact and if you can buy it for $419, that's a screamingly good deal! It usually sells for about $1400 new. The 70-300 DO has only been offered in one version and dates from 2005. (OTOH, the 400/4 DO IS USM has been updated more recently with a Mark II version, which improves flare resistance among other things.)

The 70-300mm IS USM also has only ever been offered in one version, introduced in 2004. It usually sells for $650 but currently is offered with a $200 instant rebate that reduces the price to $450 new (such a large discount hints that there might be a new version coming... Canon usually doesn't discount more than 5 or 10%).

Between these two zooms, there generally isn't very much difference in image quality, AF and IS performance or build quality. The DO lens is a little bit more prone to flare if pointed directly at a bright light. Other than that, both have pretty good IQ and their stabilization is an earlier version rated for about 3 stops. The primary difference is that the DO lens is quite a bit smaller and lighter. I know one photographer who bought it and uses it primarily for that reason.

Canon's newest and best 70-300mm is their L-series, intro'd in 2010, which is considerably larger and heavier, has the best IQ of them all, has better IS, plus is better built and sealed for dust/moisture resistance, likely more durable, sells new for $1350 (currently $1250 after a $100 instant rebate) and can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring that's sold separately ($170 for Canon OEM Ring "C" new, or around $50 or less typically for a metal third party version.... don't buy the cheaper plastic ones. Those break.)

One Canon to avoid is the EF 75-300mm non-IS, non-USM. It's often the cheapest of the zooms around this range, can be found new for under $200... but it's not all that great optically or in build quality or in performance. I highly recommend IS on an lens 200mm or longer, too, that you plan to use handheld a lot.... and this lens lacks it. It's micro motor AF also is not all that great (the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM lens is only a little more expensive and is a much better choice).

However, 300mm really is kind of short for birding, in particular. Longer can be nice for other wildlife photography, too.

Personally I use the EF 300mm f4L IS USM a lot and it works very well with a quality 1.4X teleconverter (I use the Canon EF 1.4X Mark II) giving me an effective 420mm f5.6 with image stabilization (early version, 2-3 stop). The f5.6 zooms you're considering aren't likely to handle a teleconverter as well as a prime lens. While technically the 7DII is still able to autofocus with a 1.4X on an f5.6 lens (center AF point only), making for an "effective" f8 combo... but AF will likely perform better with an effective f5.6, such as my f4 lens + 1.4X. The 300/4L IS sells for $1350 new (less a $50 instant rebate right now) and the current EF 1.4X Mark III costs $430.

With a few exceptions, teleconverters DO NOT work well with zooms. They work best with prime lenses. If you are thinking you'll need more than 300mm some of the time, buy a zoom with longer reach to use WITHOUT a TC... or buy a prime lens instead of a zoom to use with one. 1.4X TC "costs" one stop of light and a little bit of image quality... 2X costs two stops and more image quality. With the f5.6 lenses you're considering, a 2X would make for an effective f11 combo, your camera would not be able to autofocus and your viewfinder will be quite dim to try to manually focus.

The tricky thing with teleconverters is that there are just so many different possible combinations, between all the brands, versions and strengths of TCs and the myriad different lenses folks might use them with. If you get serious about a TC, try to do a lot of careful research about how specific ones work on the particular lens you want to use it upon.

Canon's TCs aren't cheap, but are excellent. All the Canon TCs have a protruding front element that has to fit inside the rear of the lens they're used upon, so they physically cannot be used with a lot of lenses. Canon recommends using them with prime lenses 135mm and longer, 70-200mm zooms, and to a more limited extent 100-400mm zooms (limited AF with 1.4X on some cameras, will not AF at all on a lot of Canon cameras).

I don't know very much about other brands of TCs except for the Kenko... They make two qualities of TC in both 1.4X and 2X. Their cheaper 1.4X MC-4 (about $100) is actually quite sharp in the center and might be fine using it on a crop sensor camera like the 7D. Their more expensive Pro 300 1.4X (about $145) might be a tiny bit less sharp in the center, but is sharper toward the edges, across the entire image area... some users feel it's comparable to the Canon Mark II I use. Sigma and Tamron both make TCs, too. Tokina has made some in the past, too. I just don't know very much about them.

The Canon EF 400mm f5.6L USM is another very popular lens among birders... it's quite sharp and sells for $1250 (less $100 instant rebate right now). However, it lacks Image Stabilization, so it's less handholdable and you're more likely to want a tripod with it... or at least a monopod.

The Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM Mark II is relatively new and perhaps the most versatile and incorporates a fluorite element for very high image quality, reasonable size/weight (only a little bigger/heavier than a 70-200/2.8), updated 4-stop/3-mode IS and high performance AF, among some other nice improvements. But it costs $2200 new (less $100 rebate now).

The Mark II has only recently been introduced and there are still copies of the original 100-400mm L IS USM available new, typically discounted to around $1300. You'll also find quite a few of these lenses on the used market, that people have traded in on the new version. This is a push/pull design zoom, rather unusual today but a design that was used a lot in the past. People tend to either love or hate this type of zoom. Air show and birds-in-flight photographers appreciate the speed of this type zoom... but it may not be as steady to shoot with. Some also think it's a bit of a "dust pump" on their cameras. DO NOT use a "protection filter" on this lens... it's widely known to "go soft" whenever any filter is added to it. Not that a thin glass filter provides much protection on any lens, but here it's doubly silly because the deep lens hood gives better protection anyway.

There are also third party 70-300, 120-400, 150-500 and 150-600mm lenses to consider. Most recently both Tamron and Sigma have offered 150-600mm at around $1100 that might be worth a look. Sigma also offers a higher performance, better built 150-600mm "Sport" version, that costs around $1800 presently.

There are other, more uncompromising and powerful zoom and prime telephotos... but size, weight and prices go up rapidly from around $3500 to well over $10,000.

For birds in particular, it's often said that "you never have a long enough focal length"! Of course, you have to balance that against size, weight and cost.

And, you might want a wider lens for landscape shots. The relatively new Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM is a real bargain among the ultrawides. It sells for under $300, which is $100, $200 or more less than others typically sell for. It's also one of the smallest and lightest ultrawides, as well as one of very few with Image Stabilization (not that IS is as essential on an ultrawide as it is on a telephoto... but what the heck, it can't hurt either!) The 10-18mm is a little plasticky, but it's likely fine for occasional use and doesn't compromise on image quality or general performance... and it's less than half the price of Canon's own, better-built EF-S 10-22mm USM.

Have fun shopping!

CAS1951 Loc: San Diego

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Unfortunately there are no really good 70-300's except the L version - and it is overpriced !

If you can live without IS, and you get a good copy, the Sigma 100-300 f4 is a GREAT lens ! Only available used, I would get one that has a warranty of some kind - like from KEH.

Otherwise, I would get the Canon 70-200 f4 and add a 1.4X and live happily ever-after !

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

I have the 70-300 non-DO and get excellent results. I got mine on eBay for a little over $200 barely used and looking brand new. The DO uses fresnel lenses to shorten the length but gives no better results according to Ken Rockwell. Here's his take:

I'd pass on this lens.

The Canon 70-300mm DO IS is interesting to collectors as being the world's first Fresnel (DO) consumer zoom, but I prefer other lenses that cost less. You're paying a premium for gee-whiz technology and superior focus flexibility over the non-DO Canon 70-300mm IS, as well as losing 1.7" (43mm) in length, but otherwise I prefer the non-DO version at half the price.

The non-DO Canon 70-300mm IS has superior image stabilization and therefore overall image quality. The only thing you lose for half the price is dorky manual focus, and a focus ring which moves during autofocus. The IS works much better on the less expensive lens at 300mm where it's needed most, and the less expensive lens is 3 ounces lighter. I see no point in paying twice as much for the DO which is more difficult to zoom just to lose 1.7" (43mm) in length. They are the same maximum diameter.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

You and every UHH should become familiar with all the criteria in evaluating a lens. This starts with elements and groups, number and type of aperture blades, coatings, special elements for distortion, aberration, vignetting, etc, etc... Other wise you will continue to make selection mistakes and have regrets. It does not take much in becoming educated in such matters and it gives you such an advantage and true independence. The best you're going to get out of UHH is I have and like it or/and don't without specifics.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Including your good self, apparently. If that is your opinion of UHH I have to ask "why are you here?"
Can't remember where I heard that expression first! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :evil: :evil:

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

I am sorry. You don't understand my emphasis to educate one's self and become your own expert and self reliant. That all I want to do.. And I also post an image here and there to validate. How about yourself ... Oh never mind.. I think I know the answer. I have seen the images you have posted.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Mark, that is the point. You seem to think that you are a legend in your own lunchtime, and are thus superior to everybody else. What makes you so insecure?

You are clearly a very capable photographer, and I don't disagree with your concept that people should manage their education and aim towards being as self-reliant as possible. I see the OP as being in that position and asking relevant questions.

On the other hand, learning is about being able to ask questions without anticipating the fear of being ridiculed. In fact, being able to ask questions and collect information, and then make one's own decisions upon one's own criteria seems to be the approved methodology.

As I have said previously, insulting other people is not a good tactic for someone that professes to be an educator, as I believe you do.

I fully agree that you are a better photographer than I am, so your insults explicit or implied are like water off a duck's back.

In other areas, I suggest you don't try to engage. Your track record speaks volumes, and I would politely suggest that you are out of your depth. You clearly have a lot of value to add, but the manner in which it is delivered makes a huge difference.

As a professional educator, you should know that. It's part of education/teacher training 101.

Gosh, that was so long ago! :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

[quote=Peterff]Mark, that is the point. You seem to think that you are a legend in your own lunchtime, and are thus superior to everybody else. What makes you so insecure?

You are clearly a very capable photographer, and I don't disagree with your concept that people should manage their education and aim towards being as self-reliant as possible. I see the OP as being in that position and asking relevant questions.

On the other hand, learning is about being able to ask questions without anticipating the fear of being ridiculed. In fact, being able to ask questions and collect information, and then make one's own decisions upon one's own criteria seems to be the approved methodology.

As I have said previously, insulting other people is not a good tactic for someone that professes to be an educator, as I believe you do.

I fully agree that you are a better photographer than I am, so your insults explicit or implied are like water off a duck's back.

In other areas, I suggest you don't try to engage. Your track record speaks volumes, and I would politely suggest that you are out of your depth. You clearly have a lot of value to add, but the manner in which it is delivered makes a huge difference.

As a professional educator, you should know that. It's part of education/teacher training 101.

Gosh, that was so long ago! :mrgreen: :mrgreen:[/quot

I did not read your post - as I really don't care... You're not worth the time.