Reading mode: Light Dark

canon telephoto

Go to last post
M

Merrick Padua

Active member
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Location
US
i want to get a canon telephoto lens but dont know which is good( but there all good)

i was looking between the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, or the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM...

arent the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM pretty much the same??

which is a good lens for my 40d??

thanks
 
The IS is very useful.

I assume you know the 100-400 is a push-pull type lens. Some have trouble adapting to this type of zoom feature.

The f/2.8 range will allow you to shoot in much lower light conditions.

Your choice will depend on what you hope to shoot. It would help others to offer advice if you described your needs. Daylight football games would do well with the 100-400, while the 70-200 f/2.8 is often used for indoor basketball in well light gyms.

For such an expensive decision it may even be worthwhile to rent.
--
Mtnm

 
Question 1, have you posted this in the lens forum?
Merrick Padua said:
i want to get a canon telephoto lens but dont know which is good( but there all good)

i was looking between the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, or the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM...
Click to expand...
I have the 100-400 and the 70-200IS and I use them in different ways. The 100-400 is what I have on for wildlife, BIF's and such. I like it for it's versatility but it needs a fair amount of light and I find it better stopped down to 6.3 to 8 which is why you need a good light to keep the shutter speed up. The 70-200 is just a really nice lens and I use it portraits and flowers, butterflies when I can't get too close and want to isolate the subject with selective focus. I shoot charity events (special olympics and such) and you can get some nice shots of people while staying back out of the way.
Merrick Padua said:
arent the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM pretty much the same??
Click to expand...
Yes except the IS is Image Stabilized which I find helpful due to it's size. But that going to add a lot to the price as I'm sure you noticed.

You may also want to consider the 70-200 f4. It is regarded as one of the sharpest and without IS it is a very good value. The only drawback is it's f4 but depending on the conditions you shoot this may be a minor point. Many people love it.
Merrick Padua said:
which is a good lens for my 40d??
Click to expand...
As mentioned in another post they are all good but are used for different purposes.
Merrick Padua said:
thanks
Click to expand...
No problem.

--
Doug

http://douginoviedo.smugmug.com/
 
well i want a good all around... outdoor, indoor, wildlife, football, indoor basketball, the night sky, landscape.

so like the 70-200mm f/2.8l is usm right??
 
Merrick Padua said:
well i want a good all around... outdoor, indoor, wildlife, football, indoor basketball, the night sky, landscape.

so like the 70-200mm f/2.8l is usm right??
Click to expand...
Any time you see the L designation on a Canon lens you know they are among the best Canon has to offer. They are Pro lenses. There are four 70-200L lenses and every one of them produce excellent results. The differences between them are 1 stop of light (F2.8 or F4). Both versions have IS and non IS versions. I have the F4 non IS and it is an excellent performer.

If you are shooting low light go with the F2.8 version. But I don't think you will find it as the lens of choice for nigh sky shots since 70 MM times 1.6 give you a 116 MM focal length on the crop body and that's much too narrow to be of much use. Most night shooters go wide.
 
It really does depend on your budget and what you want to shoot. I have gathered a reasonable collection, but use different ones according to what I want. As follows;

Sigma 10-20mm. Great for night star shots, and for things like museums where you cannot get far enough back with the standard type lens to get it all in. Museums normally put you quite close to displays, and a 17mm start is too narrow for one shot;

Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS, my favourite lens. Sharp as a tack, quick focussing, great IS. Absolutely the best indoor lens there is, and only comes off if too long, where I need the 10-20mm Sigma. I have got shots as low as 1/5th sec hand held thathave come out way better than expected when shooting in poor light (Nocturnal houses, AQUA centres etc.) and where flash and tripods are banned. If this baby can't get you the shot, then nothing will. Not only great on the IS, some of my shots have been at full zoom of 55mm at 1/5th of a sec, and not been throw-outs. I just cannot praise it highly enough.

Canon 18-200mm IS lens. Came with the 50D, and a great travel lens. Also when in dusty conditions or other places where changing a lens is avoided at all costs. Reasonable optics, reasonable focus speed, good IS. But a bit overpriced.

Canon 55-250mm IS. This is a great value for money lens, and is the first choice when needing a bit more than 55mm. Will choose it over the 18-200 any day for IQ.

Canon 100-400 L IS. Unsurpassed as an outdoors/BIF lens etc. As soon as I get to 100mm or more, this lens is on. Early ones were sometimes soft at long zooms, but no-one I have heard has got a soft one in the last few years. Mine's sharp even at F5.6 and 400mm zoom. probably my most mounted lens after the 17-55mm one.

If finances allow later, for shooting indoor sport, I'd add the 70-200mm F2.8 IS. I've shot with one and they are amazing, but a hefty price tag too. But I think this lens is more for those who are selling pic's, and want to earn money from them. I'm over $13K in 2 Camera bags as an amateur, so that's pretty much as much as I can justify. But everyone has a different budget.
--
The Aussie Viking
 
Probably things like the 10-20mm wide angles are good night sky lenses. But if the exposure is more than a few seconds long, it's best on a tracking telescope mount so that it moves at the same rate (no star trails) unless you want to shoot long and get trails.

For shooting the moon, the 100-400mm does a great job, and even consider using a 1.4 Teleconvertor. But to shoot things like Saturns rings etc, consider mounting on a telescope. And bear in mind, you need good clear atmospherics to get good pics. Well away from City light pollution, and also air pollution. Our Astronomy club has a "deep space" venue which is about 250Km away from the capital city (Perth), and has about a 50K buffer from the nearest town. Lucky that's not too much of a challenge here in Australia.
--
The Aussie Viking
 
The 70-200 IS L, f/2.8 is a good starting point.

One lens will not do everything.
But the 70-200 IS L, f/2.8 is a very nice lens, which can cover a wide range.

You might try purchasing it on the used market. They generally hold their value, so if you treat it kindly it you likely will be able to sell it in the future for nearly the same price as you paid.

You've listed a very wide range of interests.

The 70-200 IS f/2.8 could be used for night astronomy shots. Mounted on a tripod, and shooting in 15-30 second intervals you can then stack the photos. Cloudynights is a friendly forum, and a good place to start: http://cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?Cat=

I find the 200mm range on the short side for football and wildlife. But if you can get close to the action you can still do a reasonable job with it.

There were (are) some versions of the 100-400 lens which people claim were not sharp. I'm considering this lens, but would purchase it new from a place like b&hphoto, which allows returns.
--
Mtnm

 
A buddy of mine used to find his 100-400 to be a little soft compared to my 400 f/5.6. At the time I had an XTi and he had a 20d. When he upgraded to the mark iii, suddenly the lens was tack sharp. It seemed to have been a very slight focus issue with his 20d. Who knew?
 
between the 100-400mm and the 28-300mm, which one would you prefer for medium wide and telephoto zoom??
 
Both are very sharp. All I can say is thar the IS has let me have some keepers of my kids that I wouldn't have had otherwise.
 
MtnM said:
The IS is very useful.

I assume you know the 100-400 is a push-pull type lens. Some have trouble adapting to this type of zoom feature.

The f/2.8 range will allow you to shoot in much lower light conditions.

Your choice will depend on what you hope to shoot. It would help others to offer advice if you described your needs. Daylight football games would do well with the 100-400, while the 70-200 f/2.8 is often used for indoor basketball in well light gyms.

For such an expensive decision it may even be worthwhile to rent.
--
Mtnm

Click to expand...
--I found the push pull of the 100-400 very natural and I have never unstood why people have such an issue with this?

As for the 70-200 2.8 I think the non IS has a little better IQ but in low light the IS version is hard to beat

Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top