which lens?

25-400? That's a pretty big range. What will you be shooting?

Canon 70-200mm ƒ/4L
Canon 90-300mm USM
Sigma 28-300mm

Careful though, long range telephotos tend to affect image quality, especially in the high ranges.

scotthayes said:

Just bought a Canon 400d and I'm now looking to buy another lens for it.

looking for something in the range of 25/50-200/400. So many to chose from.

Budget is around £500

Would really like some personal recommendations.

Click to expand...

Sigma 50-500 if you shoot from a tripod.

scotthayes said:

Just bought a Canon 400d and I'm now looking to buy another lens for it.

Click to expand...

Most lenses are good. But they are good for different things. The way the chosse is to know what you will be shooting and match the lens to the subject.

Maybe you could tell us what kinds of shots you are not able to get with the lens you have.

In general on a "crop body" any lens longer then about 200mm is a specialty lens and you will be wanting to use it on a tripod.

scotthayes said:

the Canon 70-200 is top of my list at the moment. Any one got one and could let me know what they think of it?

Click to expand...

I wish I did have one however, like you, it's probably going to be my next purchase lens-wise.

Although, I have used one coupled with a 2x extender (so, 140-400 x 1.6 = 224-640! ) and the build quality and clarity are just unreal but then again, what can you expect from a Canon L lens. I tried it minus the extender too and the results were pretty much the same. The focal range seems to be the sweet spot for me, especially when shooting subjects which aren't that too keen on being photographed.

One small thing I'll add in though, is if you have the extra cash available, definitely go for the ƒ/2.8 version: your photography will love you for it.

Shaduu said:

I wish I did have one however, like you, it's probably going to be my next purchase lens-wise.

Although, I have used one coupled with a 2x extender (so, 140-400 x 1.6 = 224-640! )

Click to expand...

I have the 70-200 IS f/2.8, which is normally coupled with the 1.4x (98-280 x 1.6 = 157mm - 448mm equivalent ... at f/4)

and the build quality and clarity are just unreal but then again, what can you expect from a Canon L lens.

Click to expand...

Someone (luminous landscape?) has a "400 vs 400" report, where they conduct a shoot-off between the 70-200 with 2x to the Canon 100-400 IS f/4.5-5.6 L lens. My recollections are that the latter had a slight edge. It also would be a bit cheaper too.

The reason why I personally passed on the 100-400 was because I thought that it would be important/useful to have the capability to drop down to f/2.8 for some subjects. I haven't used that capability much yet, but its still there for when I start to need it

There's only two problems:

1) either lens is above the OP's price range.
2) both are telephotos, no normal or wide angle capability.

The real question here might be more along the lines of ... what are your near-term priorities, to which you may have the opportunity to add to the lens budget later on?


-hh

Shaduu said:

One small thing I'll add in though, is if you have the extra cash available, definitely go for the ƒ/2.8 version: your photography will love you for it.

Click to expand...

I'll agree with this wholeheartedly. If you can wait and save up or be extra nice, then get the f/2.8 IS. It's worth the money and the wait. By far, the most commonly traded lenses on professional and prosumer Buy & Sell forums are the Canon 70-200 f/4L and the 17-40f/4L. Not that they are bad lenses, no they are fantastic in their own right, but the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and 24-105f/4 IS are just worth the extra cash.

I'll recommend the 24-105 f/4L which is about £200 more than £500 but well worth it and not as expensive as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. With the 1.6x crop factor it reaches fairly well, the IS is great and is just a fantastic general lens (if you don't already have an all-around lens of this quality).

Canon have just announced a new cashback starting 1st oct in the UK. Think it's £130 off the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS.

EOS 400D - £50
EOS 40D - £50
EOS 5D - £135

EF 17-40 f/4L USM - £70
EF 24-70 2.8L USM - £90
EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM - £35

EF 70-200 f/4L USM - £70
EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM - £100
EF 70-200 f/2.8L USM - £100
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM - £135
EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM - £40
EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM - £70

EF 50 f/1.2L USM - £50
EF 85 f/1.2L II USM - £70
EF 100 f/2.8 Macro USM - £20

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM - £40
EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM - £55
EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM - £20
EF-S 60 f2.8 Macro USM - £13

Speedlite 580EX II - £35
Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX - £20

Click to expand...

I have the 70-200 f/4 non IS lens and recommend it. I'm wondering if you really need the f/2.8, o.k. it's a stop faster but it does weigh and cost a lot more. I know a fair few recommend the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. Which is meant to be a bit of a gem considering the cost.

Hope it helps.

Kebabselector said:

I have the 70-200 f/4 non IS lens and recommend it. I'm wondering if you really need the f/2.8, o.k. it's a stop faster but it does weigh and cost a lot more.

Click to expand...

Of course it costs and weighs more- it's a stop faster. That means you can shoot in half the light- so the decision points generally start with "will I be shooting in half the light?" It doesn't matter how small and cheap a lens is if it won't get you the shot...