Telezooms for Canon

[Nicola]

Dear all,
I'm quite sure to give me a "cadeaux" for Christmas... I'm looking for a new telezoom. Up to now, I'm comparing a couple of canon lenses: EF 70-200 f/4 IS L USM and EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM.
this is an hard competition, I would like to listen your advices
I exclusively use it in outdoor shooting, on what (I think) is called "travel photography": during my excursions on holidays and weekend I usually set up telezoom for capture either a "wildlife" or a portrait or a landscape. So I've excluded f/2.8 lens because too expensive, I can't use the not-IS version since I can never use a tripod.
Reading through many tests and articles, I'm quite sure that the IS, USM and build quality are very similar between 70-200 f/4 L and 70-300 L. Aren't they?
The most relevant difference is image resolution and focal lenght.
All the tests I found on the web show the 70-200 f/4 is sharper than the 70-300 on borders (but in my APS-C camera that should be less relevant)
I need the 300mm, but I can reach something similar with a 1.4x extender on th 70-200.
the prices of 70-300 L and 70-200 f/4 + used 1.4x II are very similar

So what you would suggest to me?

[Donald]

Nicola

I have never used the 70-300. But from all the reviews and comments I've read and heard, I understand that the 70-200 (which I do have) is regarded as one of the best lenses available. I would add to that by saying it is a remarkably good instrument.

The other point about the 70-200 us that you retain f4 availability throughout the focal range.

[Geoff F]

But if you need to work at 300 mm then the 70-300 L makes sense.

I was looking at this lens before it became available in the UK but finally went for the 70-200 because the UK Vat rate (sales tax) was due to increase before the 70-300 would be available.

I agree with Donald that the 70-200 is a fine lens. However, a friend recently purchased the 70-300 L (after trying a few of my lenses) and he is delighted with it.

However, just to 'muddy the waters' if you do a lot of work at 300 mm have you considered a 300 mm prime as an alternative? Subject to what other lenses you have to cover the shorter distances.

[rpcrowe]

I searched through my images to find a hand held shot with the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and my 1.4x TC (I use a Mk-i) and these are the only ones I found. I have not been using the 1.4x on my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens since I purchased the 300mm f/4L IS lens several years ago and my older images are not cataloged as well as they should be.








I love my 70-200mm f/4L IS and consider it one of the best lenses I have ever used. I use it in tandem with my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on a pair of 1.6x cameras and love the combination. I use it all the time in various venues including in some lower light levels such as this dance show in Xi'an, China...



See other images of this show at:
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Travel/CH...71113950_Fstqr

It is also my favorite portrait lens...



See other portraits with the 70-200mm f/4L IS at:
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Portraits...44320241_7kTXJ

I have not used the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens so I cannot make any comparisons. I don't know how a shorter but slightly heavier lens would be to shoot. I would also need to find out what the variable aperture of the 70-300L is at 200mm. I often shoot with my 70-200L at 200mm and it is important to have a wide aperture in order to maintain shutter speed.

[Nicola]

thanks guys!

thank Richard for the beautiful pictures too!
I can see the 70-300 tested at f/4.5 and 200mm so i think the aperture isn't a point of significant difference.
altough, the necessity of set up or remove the 1.4x converter all the times I need the extreme focal lenghts, could be boring...
I have to count the percentage of shots taken beyond and below 200mm on my telezoom..

[BJ Denning]

I too have been considering a telephoto and haven't made a decision yet. If you are looking for the greater reach, have you considered the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L ? The review seem to indicate that it is an excellant lens. And you get another 100mm. The only down side, I can see, is the unique push-pull zoom.

[Nicola]

I too have been considering a telephoto and haven't made a decision yet. If you are looking for the greater reach, have you considered the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L ? The review seem to indicate that it is an excellant lens. And you get another 100mm. The only down side, I can see, is the unique push-pull zoom.

thanks Bryan for the feedback
I'm not considering the 100-400 L as an option because despite its cost (about 20% more than the 70-300 L) it has some weak points:
- I think I'll use more the 70 to 100 mm gap focal lenght than the 300 to 400mm (I've an APS-C camera, and the other lenses are 17-40, 50 and 100 macro)
- in tthe test I saw, it performs a bit worst than the 70-300 in the MTF-50 test
- its IS is able to "cover" 2EV stops, the 70-300's IS reach 4 EV stops (both values coming from tests)
- a little bit heavier and bigger

anyway thanks for the suggestion!

[rpcrowe]

You know Nicola, I am happy with my 70-200mm well enough that I don't intend to trade it. However, if I were in the market for a zoom (and didn't have the 300mm prime), I would certainly consider the 70-300mm and do quite a bit of research on that lens.

However, in actuality, I would like a 50-250mm f/4-5.6L IS lens even better than the 70-300mm for a 1.6x camera. I used a friends 55-250mm lens and liked the focal range quite a bit on my 1.6x cameras. I did not like the downsides: slow focus, rotating front element, etc. But the 55-250mm range was great...

[ap.photo]

I love my 70-200mm f/4L IS and consider it one of the best lenses I have ever used. I use it in tandem with my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on a pair of 1.6x cameras and love the combination. I use it all the time in various venues including in some lower light levels such as this dance show in Xi'an, China...

I have not used the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS lens so I cannot make any comparisons. I don't know how a shorter but slightly heavier lens would be to shoot. I would also need to find out what the variable aperture of the 70-300L is at 200mm. I often shoot with my 70-200L at 200mm and it is important to have a wide aperture in order to maintain shutter speed.

Very nice portraits, matter of fact I noticed that lens matter when it comes to specific styles of photography? I use my 50mm lens for portraits. I was curious if telephoto lenses are a must for wedding photographers? I shoot with a canon 40D, if so what would be my best appropriate telephoto lens? Any ideas? I buy my lenses off amazon. My camera came as a kit with two lenses and tripod, cleaning kit, etc.

I see canon has these really nice white telephoto lenses (Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras) and (Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras ) please see: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...fix=CANON+tELE

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

A

[Geoff F]

Personally Anne, I wouldn't touch weddings with a 12 ft barge pole, to use a UK term.

But I know some people specialise in this form of photography and do like a longer lens sometimes. Something around 100 mm often gets mentioned so one of the 70-200 lenses would nicely fit this area.

But be careful before purchasing because there are a number of different versions and they don't all have IS, plus there are a couple of aperture sizes.

The 2.8 model with IS would certainly work well for that type of shooting, but it is a little on the expensive side.

Because I rarely need to work in reduced light, and I'm just a poor retired person, I purchased the F4 IS alternative which suits me fine.

[rpcrowe]

Very nice portraits, matter of fact I noticed that lens matter when it comes to specific styles of photography? I use my 50mm lens for portraits. I was curious if telephoto lenses are a must for wedding photographers? I shoot with a canon 40D, if so what would be my best appropriate telephoto lens? Any ideas? I buy my lenses off amazon. My camera came as a kit with two lenses and tripod, cleaning kit, etc.

I see canon has these really nice white telephoto lenses (Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras) and (Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras ) please see: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...fix=CANON+tELE
A

When I shot weddings commercially, I mostly used a single focal length; usually 75-80mm on a 6x6cm medium format camera. I was able to cover the events very much to the satisfaction of my clients and most of my business was through word of mouth referrals from previous customers. At first I used Rolleiflex twin lens reflex cameras (one for shooting and a second in reserve). Then I evolved into using a Hasselblad single lens reflex camera with the Rollei or a Mamiyaflex in reserve. I never carried more than one camera at any time. Medium format gear was just too heavy and bulky. I only owned two lenses for the Hasselblad: 80mm which I used for general coverage and 150mm which I used for formal portraits.

Today's photographers, myself included, are abundantly supplied with equipment to a far greater degree than most film photographers. I have three 1.6x cameras and any number of top-line lenses. I always shoot with at least two DSLR cameras with a pair of lenses.

I am far too long in the tooth to contemplate shooting weddings again but, I would have no problem using the gear that I have. Many people insist that you need an f/2.8 aperture to cover a wedding effectively. I disagree!

Yes, you do need at least an f/2.8 aperture if you are shooting using available light but, I was quite able to cover weddings with a medium format camera using an 80mm f/2.8 lens and a 150mm f/4 lens by using flash creatively. The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is IMO a more versatile lens than the 150mm f/4 Sonar I used with my Hasselblad.

If I were collecting a set of digital gear strictly for weddings I would select two Canon 5Dii cameras with 24-70mm f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii lenses (a wedding only takes a couple of hours the weight of the f/2.8L would not be too excessive) with a minimum of one extra back up camera and an extra 24-105mm f/4L IS lens as backup. The 24-105L would be able to cover either the medium range shots or the telephoto shots.

The USA prices of the above equipment would run in the area of $10,000 USD + extras like flash. Quite a chunk of change but, not really exorbitant when you consider the start up cost of virtually any business today.

However if I should go absolutely stark raving mad and decide to shoot another wedding, I would be confident that I could shoot it with the equipment at my disposal: 40D and 7D cameras with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses. My backup would be a 30D and 28-135mm (this is a hypothetical one time gig which will never happen). Extrapolating on the quality of my photography in various venues, I am sure that I could effectively cover a wedding with my gear. But, it would not be what I would choose for routine wedding work...