dick ranez

The 100-400ii is an impeccable lens, but it is expensive. Consider either the Sigma or tamron 150-600 at about half the price.

ggab Loc: ?

All due respect, 3fps with a 6 raw image buffer is not great. It is fine for landscape, portrait and perhaps street photography but not wildlife and BIF.

used EOS 7D II and a 400mm F/5.6 is a much better kit.
If the OP wants zoom,Used EOS 7D II and 70-300 IS USM II is a much better kit.

The Canon direct store has the 7DII refurb for 1120.00 or as low as $800.00 for an Ex used version. KEH has the 400mm f/5.6 USM for $800.00.
The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM is new for $499.00 at the Canon direct store.
The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II can be had used for as low as $1215 at KEH or refurbed for $1760.00 at the Canon Store.

The bottom line is that for the cost of a new, or even refurb 100-400mm IS II the OP can get a much better camera and an excellent lens for wildlife and bif.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

70-200mm is nowhere near powerful enough telephoto for A LOT of wildlife photography....

If you're looking at the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (no "IS"), that's the oldest and "least capable" of the many 70-200s that Canon has produced. Don't get me wrong... it was an excellent zoom, in it's day (and is still in production as a lower cost option). But that was 1995 and was with film. It and the first 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM** version (2001, discontinued some years ago), are the only Canon 70-200s that DON'T use fluorite in their optical formula.

The 70-200mm f/4L USM* (no IS) from 1999 uses fluorite and is sharper, cheaper, smaller and lighter weight than the f.2.8 lens. The version EF 70-200mm f/4L *IS* USM version from 2006 is even better, plus it's stabilized (3-4 stop). The f/4 non-IS version is still in production. The f/4 IS version has been superseded by a newer model.

Here's a list of the many Canon 70-200mm versions and some comments on each...

- EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM.... 1995, a good lens on its own, no image stabilization, no fluorite, still in production as the least expensive f/2.8 version. Works okay with a quality 1.4X teleconverter such as Canon's II or III version. Image quality suffers badly when used with 2X teleconverters.

- EF 70-200mm f/4L USM*... 1999, very good lens on its own, not stabilized, but uses fluorite and still in production as the least expensive 70-200 that Canon offers. All the f/4 lenses are about 1/3 smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 versions. Works okay with a quality 1.4X teleconverter. Unable to autofocus on a T5/1200D with a 2X teleconverter.

- EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM**... 2001, very good lens on its own, stabilized (2-3 stop) but no fluorite, discontinued model. Works okay with quality 1.4X. Pretty poor image quality with a 2X.

- EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM**... 2006, excellent lens on its own, both stabilized (3-4 stop) and uses fluorite, recently discontinued. Works pretty well with quality 1.4X. No autofocus with 2X on a T5/1200D camera.

- EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II*... 2010, excellent lens on its own, both stabilized (3-4 stop) and uses fluorite, now discontinued model. Works very well with quality 1.4X and pretty well with 2X teleconverter.

- EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM II... 2018, excellent lens on its own, both stabilized (3-4 stop) and uses fluorite, current production. Works very well with quality 1.4X teleconverter. No AF with 2X on T5/1200D.

- EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM III... 2018, excellent lens on it's own, both stabilized (3-4 stop) and uses fluorite, current production. Works very well with quality 1.4X and pretty well with 2X teleconverter.

Note: All are Canon 70-200 are L-series and, as such, all come with matched lens hood. The f/2.8 lenses use "tulip" style hoods while the f/4 lenses use more standard designs. The f/2.8 lenses all come with tripod mounting ring. The f/4 lenses do not include tripod ring, but can optionally be fitted with one, sold separately.

In my opinion, the latest two lenses are rather minor upgrades compared to their immediate predecessor versions. I own and use the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM and have no plans to "upgrade" to the II. I don't have the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II, but if I did I wouldn't be likely to upgrade to the III.

70-200 lenses, in general, are very useful. You will find one in many pros' camera bags.

Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS STM lens and EF 70-300mm IS USM (both original and II) are all also very good, lower cost lenses... Especially void the Canon EF 75-300mm "III"... it's Canon's cheapest telephoto zoom, $200 or less. It also is slow and noisy focusing with a micro motor, doesn't have image stabilization and has pretty poor image quality at the longer focal lengths.

But 250mm or 300mm really really aren't long enough telephotos for wildlife photography. The 55-250 and 70-300 lenses also don't lend themselves to use with teleconverters (none would be able to autofocus on your camera with any teleconverter installed).

For wildlife I would instead recommend....

- Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM*.... 1998, push/pull zoom design, very good lens with stabilization (2-3 stop) and fluorite, discontinued model. Wouldn't be able to autofocus on T5/1200D with any teleconverter added.

- Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II**... 2014, separate focus & zoom ring design, superb lens with stabilization (3-4 stop) and fluorite, current model. Image quality excellent with quality 1.4X teleconverter, but would not be able to autofocus on T5/1200D camera.

- Canon 300mm f/4L IS USM plus Canon EF 1.4X II or III teleconverter**... 1997 lens, one of the first to be stabilized (2-3 stop), doesn't use fluorite but is quite good anyway. Still in production. Works very well with a quality 1.4X teleconverter and would be able to autofocus on T5/1200D (although would be limited to using center AF point only, I think).

- Canon 400mm f/5.6L USM*... 1993, still in production... very sharp even without fluorite. But also doesn't have image stabilization and wouldn't be usable with any teleconverter on a T5/1200D.

Sigma and Tamron both make 100-400mm lenses that are half the price of the current Canon. They are "slower", the Canon lens has 1/3 to 2/3 stop larger max aperture throughout most of its range. Neither Sigma nor Tamron come with tripod ring, which is included with the Canon. Tamron can optionally be fitted with a ring, sold separately. The Sigma cannot.

Sigma and Tamron also both make 150-600mm lenses. The current Tamron 150-600mm "G2" and the bigger, heavier, more expensive Sigma 150-600mm "S" (Sport) lenses are the best of them. The earlier, now discontinued Tamron and the Sigma "C" versions are not as sharp, especially at their longer focal lengths.

There have been various 120-500mm*, 150-500mm and even 50-500mm Sigma over the years.... but none of them have as good image quality as any of the above lenses. All were discontinued some years ago, but still show up on the used market fairly often. The last versions of each had Sigma's "OS" image stabilization, which is just as effective as Canon's IS. (Tamron lenses listed above have their VC, which is also effective stabilization, though I don't know how it compares to Sigma and Canon's.)

Finally, I've noted a number of Canon lenses above that use a fluorite element in their optical formula. Canon has used that in many of their telephotos for decades and it greatly reduces or eliminates chromatic aberration, which can be a problem with longer focal lengths. Fluorite is a naturally forming crystal, but has been pricey to use in lenses because it's rare in purity and sizes large enough to make lens elements, as well as difficult to work into the shapes needed. Back in the 1970s Canon pioneered growing artificial fluorite elements and developed techniques to improve manufacture of lenses with it. Fluorite is one of the key reasons Canon began painting many of their telephotos off-white, to reduce heat gain that might in extreme cases lead to damage to fluorite elements in those lenses. Nikon has recently upgraded their own 70-200mm f/2.8 and other super telephoto lenses to use fluorite, too (with substantially higher prices!). AFAIK, no other lens manufacturer is using fluorite... Sigma has some "FLD" lens elements that they refer to as "fluorite like".

* Are lenses I've used at times and pretty briefly just as loaners. ** Indicates lenses I've used extensively and either own now or have owned in the past.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/ is an excellent source of info on lenses. Bryan has tested and reviewed many... especially Canon lenses. You can use the Image Quality tool there to compare test shots made with any two lenses side-by-side. In many cases there are test shots done with a variety of cameras. I'd recommend looking for examples done with APS-C models for best comparison with how lenses will perform on your T5, which is also APS-C. There are also other comparisons you can make there... including the specifications of the lenses, vignetting, flare, and distortions.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Amazing how many BIF shots have been made with cameras W/O a motor drive. # fps was blazing fast and again took millions of superb sports photos.
The T5 is excellent.

Cookie223 Loc: New Jersey

Check out Roberts Camera used dept. B&H, or Adorama. All are very reputable.

williejoha

If your budget allows, go with the 100-400 II. It is my go to lens for BIF and other wildlife. Great lens.
WJH

Grammieb1 Loc: New Orleans

I would get the 100-400 instead. Both great lenses but for wildlife you will need more reach. I own both lenses and they are both very good. Bab

HiFromSusan

Even with the 100-400, I'd also get a teleconverter. I use a 1.4 with mine, and on a crop sensor (560 mm effective length) it still isn't enough. I'd go for the 2x, even with the 2 stops of light loss you may get.

bhad

Thank you for all the advice given in response to my request.
It looks like this lens is what I'm looking for:

100-400MM F/4.5-5.6 L IS USM EF MOUNT LENS {77}

KEH has used it for under $900
Canon has it new for over $20000

Do many of you go for used gear? I only started to do (almost all) manual shooting about a year ago so I'm new at it. I've never shopped for a lens let alone a used one. On the other hand I'm an amateur and sending over $2000 is a bit daunting.
Please advise.

Robert1 Loc: Davie, FL

You have nothing to worry by ordering through KEH. They are very conservative when rating. When you buy EX+ or EX, sometimes you wonder if the equipment is new. I would get the lens from them without hesitation.

I think that the $ 862.63 is a good price. For an EX rated item.
I have bought quite a few used items from them, never been disappointed.

ggab Loc: ?

Remember, this is the ver. I lens not the Ver. II lens.
Look at the reviews for the two versions. The biggest issue I see buying an old, discontinued lens is that Canon will end service for it. I believe KEH has the Ver. II lens for about $300.00 more.
Just a thought.
Good Luck

williejoha

I buy all my lenses ( L ) reconditioned by Canon. A Canon tech told me years ago that a reconditioned is actually better then a new one, since every part of the lense has to be checked and verified in the reconditioning process. New ones are checked for quality 1 of 10. Go for it you will not regret it.
WJH

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The version I is very limited and results not so good when trying to use a 1.4X extender.
.

stmaestro Loc: MA

You might want to look at the Tamron 18-400 mm, I got this lens a year ago and haven't taken it off of my Canon T6i since.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

With a 2X the aperture drops to ~f/11 at the long end. Too small for most cameras to auto focus.