to "L" or not to "L"???

[tlake55]

So after much research, debate, and discussion, I finally purchased the Canon 7D....MOST AWESOME CAMERA EVER!!! (at least so far, just bought a couple days ago) I bought it with the 18-135mm kit lens and am now thinking about adding additional lenses...would like to start with a bigger zoom, maybe the 70-300mm??? I am just an ameteur and will be shooting kids playing, the animals, and motor sports. So do I go with an "L" lens or just with a basic one??

[OsmosisStudios]

Frankly, if you can still find a 70-300 IS that ISNT an L, get that instead. 1/3 the price with almost all the quality.

Failing that, a 70-200 f/4L (with or without IS) is also cheaper and likely to be sharper. If you need more reach, consider a 100-400L IS.

[tlake55]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Frankly, if you can still find a 70-300 IS that ISNT an L, get that instead. 1/3 the price with almost all the quality.

Failing that, a 70-200 f/4L (with or without IS) is also cheaper and likely to be sharper. If you need more reach, consider a 100-400L IS.

How about the Sigma 120-400mm?

[OsmosisStudios]

Dont know about it: i can only recommend things I've tried. You had mentioned L lenses, so I went with L lenses.

[RichardTaylor]

+1 on the Canon 70-200 F4L and 100-400 F4.5-F5.6 IS L

What sort of animals, and where, do you want to shoot?
With the motor sport will you be shooting from trackside or the spectator areas?

[tlake55]

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

+1 on the Canon 70-200 F4L and 100-400 F4.5-F5.6 IS L

What sort of animals, and where, do you want to shoot?
With the motor sport will you be shooting from trackside or the spectator areas?

Dog, cat, deer, horses, birds...just animals around the house or when we are out camping/hiking. With motor sports it will be from both trackside and the grand stands. So "L" lens or "consumer" lens?

[RichardTaylor]

Animal that are large and/or close a 70-300 will be fine.
In the wild or for smaller animals a longer focal length is better - 400mm at least.

The same applies to motor sport, especially from the spectator areas - 400mm.

Consumer or L - depends on your budget.
If you can afford it get the L lenses straight up front. It may save you money in the long run and also may allow you capture images that you can't capture because a consumer lens will not focus fast enough.

See the last couple of posts in this thread.
Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM

I shoot motor sport, from the spectator areas and sometimes trackside with a media pass, mostly with a Canon 100-400 F4.5-F5.6 IS L.

[Michael_2010]

If money is not an issue, go straight for the L. Of course, if you take bad pictures then you can't blame it on the camera or the lens. lol

[inkista]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Frankly, if you can still find a 70-300 IS that ISNT an L, get that instead. 1/3 the price with almost all the quality.

You're kidding right? I see quite different performance at 300mm, wide open, the most used and critical performance point for me in a 70-300 zoom.

Originally Posted by tlake55

How about the Sigma 120-400mm?

Wouldn't go there unless you need to save the cash. 100-400L still easily beats it, and lensrentals put it in their "hall of shame" for a 45% failure rate. Obviously, their sample pool is limited and they may have just gotten a bad batch, but that number's still pretty high.

I'm with everyone else, for telephoto/supertele zooms, L if you can afford it. The USM and L glass combination is hard to beat in the 3rd-party market. The only 3rd party contender that might be worth it is the "Bigma" the Sigma 50-500, but that's a mighty beast and hard to handhold. To me, though, the 70-300L is probably only worth it if you want a small lens. The 100-400L IS USM or 300/4L IS USM with an extender is likely to be a better lens for what you want to do. Birds, to me, means 400 or longer.

[TerryL]

Im for the L, If you stay with photography you will end up with L glass anyway and they hold their value