What telephotos do we own?

[AlanF]

With new telephotos being announced, questions asked about how many telephotos are sold, and the usual arguments about about which are better, it may be interesting to know the numbers and choices of CR members. To keep the options down, I haven't divided into I and II series.

 

[Hillsilly]

Mine's the cheapest - the 400/5.6. Its been a good lens, but it's about 20 years old and has a pretty bad fungus problem and is currently unusable. Just waiting for Canon to bring out a new model (or new 100-400) to replace it. But then, the new Sigma sounds ok, too.

 

[tayassu]

What about the 70-300L? I've been shooting birds with that for 2 years!

 

[DominoDude]

I think you should add the Sigma 300-800/5.6 to the list. A few birders have that one, and if they have that one, they might have a few less of the others - it covers a pretty wide range.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've owned far too many over the years, and resold all of them but my current 100-400mm L. The third party ones all tended to be poor by comparison, and I don't think I can even remember all of them.

I'll try to list the 300mm or longer ones from the last few years.

Canon 100-400L (2 of them, the first was not so good)
Canon 400mm f/6 L (Great lens, lack of IS and, mfd too long, and length caused me to sell it)
Canon 300mm f/4L (Another great lens, but I kept the 100-400)
Canon 600mm f/4L (Non-IS version - too much work for me to set it up and haul around)
Canon 35-350L (Very nice, but lacked IS)
Canon 28-300L (Nice lens and sharp for a superzoom. Big and heavy)
Tokina 400mm f/5.6 (The sharpest 3rd party lens I've owned, but poor construction)
Sigma 400mm f/5.6 (would not work on digital, became junk)
Tamron 200-500mm f/6.3 (Pretty bad,)
Sigma 600mm Mirror lens (2 of them) - Good for a mirror lens, but difficult to use with no IS and fixed aperture
Nikon 500mm Mirror lens (the best mirror lens I've owned)
Nikon 300mm f/2.8 (Manual focus when adapted to Canon, but nice and sharp)
Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VC I (My Nikon to Canon adapter could not adjust aperture, so I bought a cheap D300s. Nice lens)

I've also had a ton of the lesser XX-300mm lenses, some were just ok, others were bad 70-300, 75-300, 28-300, 100-300, and so on.

I buy used equipment from Craigslist if its too cheap, and get this stuff along with cameras, TC's, etc. I play with it and keep what I like. I buy new as well, when I need something specific.

 

[Eldar]

How could you omit the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x ??

 

[AlanF]

How could you omit the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x ??

Easy, but I have now added it.

 

[Eldar]

How could you omit the 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x ??

Easy, but I have now added it.

And I have now voted

 

[dgatwood]

Please also add the 70–300L. It makes a great travel zoom, IMO.

 

[Besisika]

For now, just the 300mm f4 but thinking about something longer soon.

 

[ritholtz]

Where is 55-250 IS option?

 

[Sporgon]

What about the highly under rated 200 2.8 ?

 

[stochasticmotions]

I used to own the canon 100-400L, used it for about 80 percent of my shots for about 6 years and fell out of love with it last year when I tried the Sigma 120-300 f2.8. This has been my go to lens now for the last year using both the 1.4 and 2X teleconverters. Great combo ( but rather heavy ). I am looking at one of the 150-600 options for travel since my current combo is rather heavy unless I can get something for my sony a6000 that is long enough to make that my travel companion.

I've pretty much given up on canon coming out with something new in this range that I don't have to sell my car to get

 

[c.d.embrey]

There is NO check-box for NONE.

I rent as needed. It's been about four years since I rented a telephoto.

 

[FEBS]

I own the 200-400 1,4x And that is realy the most verstilde I know. It s heavy. That's true. Hard to handhold for a longer period. However to deliver the range of 200 to 560 mm is really great. The 300mm 2,8 is another great lens. Incredible sharp and fast. I will not sell it now I have the 200-400, but to be honest it is used less compared to a few months qgo

 

[bholliman]

I currently don't own any lenses longer than my 70-200 2.8 II plus extenders and that is generally OK. However, I do occasionally want something longer with better IQ than is possible with a 2xIII. I'm thinking about adding a 400 f/5.6 in the near term and saving up for a 300 2.8 II longer term.

I have a self imposed annual budget for photography equipment and it will take me a few years to save up for a 300 2.8 II! I had the pleasure of renting one for a weekend a few months ago and its an incredible lens!

 

[nc0b]

I have the 70-200mm IS II, and had both 1.4 and 2X III TCs until I bought the 400 f/5.6 and 300 f/4. Sold the 2X III, not because of any complaints with IQ, but if I lost focus on BIF I could rarely reacquire focus. I can take a 2 to 5 mile hike with either prime and not complain about the weight. I use these with either a 6D or 60D.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
I had both Canon EF 400mm F5.6L and Tamron 150-600mm.... I mainly use Tamron now and the Canon is my backup lens...

Have a nice day.

 

[rdalrt]

No love for the 200 f2? Not long enough?

 

[Jim Saunders]

No love for the 200 f2? Not long enough?

It is certainly expensive enough.

Personally I miss the 300 f/4 I had; great performance, light, small, comparatively cheap.

Jim