Help needed: Which Tele Lens?

[unseen]

LOL I've already a sigma 18-50 f2.8, so I'm looking for longer lenses.. While on the streets sometimes I do wish I had a longer lens.

hmmmmm anyway I got a possible deal for the 70-300 IS at $800+ new, that is why I'm really really really considering it. or another $100 for the 70-200f4l

If i get a 70-200 F2.8L IS, i doubt I'll be bringing it out everyday. I used to work with a 100mm macro, that being 700g itself, so f4's just about nice for me ba..

I avoided this thread so far because I don't want it to look like I'm trying to push the 70-200/4 I'm selling.

What I would say, objectively, is that you should get the 70-200 if you don't need the 200-300mm range. You need to know what you're going to shoot. If you need the longer range and the extra f-stop isn't important to you

yoz dude.. LOL you've no idea how much i'm really considering your lens.
Haha I've pmed you about it even.. I wanna use it as a walkabout, as well as do portrait shooting. When using a 70-200 f2.8 to shoot portrait, I tend to stop down to 4.5 or so for greater DOF about the face, so f4 works fine for me.

hoping to find some 70-300 IS user to come tell me a few points about its image quality. LOL earlier Haze was already psychoing me about the L lens le.

 

[Stoned]

yoz dude.. LOL you've no idea how much i'm really considering your lens.
Haha I've pmed you about it even.. I wanna use it as a walkabout, as well as do portrait shooting. When using a 70-200 f2.8 to shoot portrait, I tend to stop down to 4.5 or so for greater DOF about the face, so f4 works fine for me.

hoping to find some 70-300 IS user to come tell me a few points about its image quality. LOL earlier Haze was already psychoing me about the L lens le.

Let me psycho you some more then.

These are the reasons why I would personally go for the L, and I did without regrets.

- It's likely to retain it's value even after many many years.
- Better build
- Doesn't extend out when zooming(IF and internal zoom results in less dust being sucked into the lens barrel)
- Better image quality IMO( I love the f4 lens lots and it has served me very very well through various events and even for concert low-light work. Using appropriate techniques, I'm able to get consistent results at 1/125 f4. If need be, the usage of a monopod allows me to go down to 1/30. Poor man's IS It's my favourite events lens too because at 700g, it really doesn't weigh you down. The only reason I'm giving this little guy up is to upgrade to the f2.8 version, which I believe should be just as good.
- I reckon it tracks a moving object better, but that could be subjective
- Colour, contrast. (sure you could always bump this up in PS, but if you start with a saturated, contrasty, tack sharp image, you can bump it up even more! This is the main reason to get an L for me; the L colour. It creates a desire for even more L lenses, but no regrets once you use the lens.)

 

[Zack]

hmmmmm anyway I got a possible deal for the 70-300 IS at $800+ new, that is why I'm really really really considering it. or another $100 for the 70-200f4l

Care to share how you get the possible deal for the 70-300 IS USM at $800+ new? I'm interested as well!

 

[fWord]

This might have been posted before. I don't know if the problem still exists, but I just found this page and I think you should be aware of it. If you can, test your copy in the shop and look at images before buying. Otherwise, go to a reputable dealer to ensure that they'll keep their word and allow you to go home, test the lens and return it if not satisfied.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=127848&highlight=horizontal

 

[dEthANGeL]

:bsmilie: .. i shall join Stoned in the psychoing.

Attached is a photo, shot hand held during a Jap sch event - Note no post processing done, straight out of the camera, only added the borders and the sig.

Maybe after this, you'd save up more and get the 2.8 variant :devil:.. seriously i was in the same dilemma as you when i was using a 70-300 non IS MK III ... and its inhumanly slow though the lens is great under daylight.

Though its heavier, would you forgo the weight and get the shot instead? You have to decide. The F4 variant also has its plus point. So go for either F4 or F2.8, you won't go wrong, and it'll be a start to the infectious "L" disease ...

 

[fWord]

...and it'll be a start to the infectious "L" disease ...

It'd probably cause a heightened appreciation for image quality, AF speed, built quality, near insanity, an empty wallet and endless salivation over anything that's white and has a red ring on the barrel. If you can't control the disease, I suggest you avoid L lenses altogether.

Then again, I am speaking using the technique of reverse psychology.

On a more serious note, that is not to say the 70-300mm IS is not a good lens. Apart from the issue I highlighted above, it is conceivably a very useful piece of glass. I can't remember how often I wished for IS on a tele lens, and even on my kit lens. Granted, the 70-200mm f/4 has stellar image quality, BUT if you go strictly handheld and tend to shoot under less-than-ideal conditions, the 70-300mm will get you more keepers.

For fast subjects, the 70-300mm would fare worse than the 70-200mm because of the smaller aperture. IS only reduces camera shake but cannot stop subject movement. But if you were really into fast-action close-range sports, events and reasonably near wildlife, you'd probably want a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS anyway. But let's not go there. :devil: That lens is very expensive.

I'd suggest getting the 70-300mm or 70-200mm first and upgrade down the track when you know what you really want to shoot. Some people may eventually decide that these lenses are either too long or too short for their shooting habits.

 

[dEthANGeL]

It'd probably cause a heightened appreciation for image quality, AF speed, built quality, near insanity, an empty wallet and endless salivation over anything that's white and has a red ring on the barrel. If you can't control the disease, I suggest you avoid L lenses altogether.

Then again, I am speaking using the technique of reverse psychology.

On a more serious note, that is not to say the 70-300mm IS is not a good lens. Apart from the issue I highlighted above, it is conceivably a very useful piece of glass. I can't remember how often I wished for IS on a tele lens, and even on my kit lens. Granted, the 70-200mm f/4 has stellar image quality, BUT if you go strictly handheld and tend to shoot under less-than-ideal conditions, the 70-300mm will get you more keepers.

For fast subjects, the 70-300mm would fare worse than the 70-200mm because of the smaller aperture. IS only reduces camera shake but cannot stop subject movement. But if you were really into fast-action close-range sports, events and reasonably near wildlife, you'd probably want a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS anyway. But let's not go there. :devil: That lens is very expensive.

I'd suggest getting the 70-300mm or 70-200mm first and upgrade down the track when you know what you really want to shoot. Some people may eventually decide that these lenses are either too long or too short for their shooting habits.

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: ... Well, i have to agree with you on the first paragraph ... to add to that paragraph - you'll want to "zoom" in on your pictures to see whether they're RAZOR sharp.

So far, i've got to admit, i never really got to try a 70-300 with external USM or how fast it is in tracking, but i guess it has its limitations. Using a 70-300 before, i can dare say that around 300mm end, images tend to be soft @ 5.6. though you might still be able to get your picture.

 

[CYRN]

If you wan a light zoom lens wif quality (streets shoot in mind). I recommend 70-200 f4 over the rest of the options here. If you need reach... add a good 1.4x and you'll get 280mm f5.6.

But if you can get a 70-300 for 800 bucks... mabbe you can juz buy it for a test run. dun like then sell loh.

 

[dEthANGeL]

If you wan a light zoom lens wif quality (streets shoot in mind). I recommend 70-200 f4 over the rest of the options here. If you need reach... add a good 1.4x and you'll get 280mm f5.6.

But if you can get a 70-300 for 800 bucks... mabbe you can juz buy it for a test run. dun like then sell loh.

Looks as though all fingers are pointing towards the F4 variant :thumbsup: :bsmilie: ... but seriously, its a great lens... fword can vouch for it.

 

[Garion]

Thanks for the recommendations.. LOL will go buy a pair of pantyhose to try try.

My lens path now is either to go
1) 70-200F4L,
2) 70-300 is, then add on a 70-200 F2.8L eventually (heh haven't win toto, cannot buy everything).

Currently I feel that it'll be nice to have a long and flexible walkabout lens, that's why not considering the F2.8 yet.. Was wondering if #2 is a waste of money, with the duplicacy in focal length. I definitely don't relish having a 1.5kg lens as a walkabout lens. LOL I'm a weakling.
Would you think #2 is a silly idea?

I am somewhat embarassed to say, F4L is lingering on my mind because (besides the pure simple fact that it's white ) it's a kick to get sharp images out of the camera. and that the lens is light.

Given that I do a standard automated workflow for all my images, I don't see why I can't just bump up sharpening a notch to compensate for the non L sharpness of the 70-300 is.

BUT: Woud I get images from the 70-300 IS that are too soft to sharpen in PS?

70-200mm f4L gets my vote. Its light (700g), so suitable for a walkaround lens. No you are NOT a weakling, the 70-200 f2.8 (IS/non-IS) is seriously hefty and can give you neck/shoulder strain if you are walking around for long distances. 70-200 f4L is a GREAT lens for outdoors shooting. And it comes with all the L qualities (sharp, good colour, contrasty, fast focusing).

 

[shinken]

Some magazine even called "pantyhose filter" as the Hollywood effect.

An even cheaper/free method is to fog your filter with your breath just before shooting.

 

[fWord]

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: ... Well, i have to agree with you on the first paragraph ... to add to that paragraph - you'll want to "zoom" in on your pictures to see whether they're RAZOR sharp.

Ah yes, and the details are usually sharp enough to cut, unless there is a fault in technique. Assuming a buyer does not get one of those feared backfocusing copies, I think this is a lens that can be expected to give sharp images straight out of the box. It's not so heavy or long (or overly small) that very good techinque needs to be developed.

 

[fWord]

An even cheaper/free method is to fog your filter with your breath just before shooting.

Some phototogs use vaseline as well to create a dreamy halo effect in their images. It's not something I want to try yet though...oily stuff and cameras usually don't mix, unless you're careful.

 

[shadowmoses]

It'd probably cause a heightened appreciation for image quality, AF speed, built quality, near insanity, an empty wallet and endless salivation over anything that's white and has a red ring on the barrel. If you can't control the disease, I suggest you avoid L lenses altogether.

That's so true.. not just empty wallet, but empty bank account. (that's me) but that's not a good reason to avoid Ls! must buy! then canon got more money to create more and better Ls.Maybe IS which can compensate up to 10 stops, then no need tripod even though shooting 15 sec exposure! Whee!

On a more serious note, that is not to say the 70-300mm IS is not a good lens. Apart from the issue I highlighted above, it is conceivably a very useful piece of glass. I can't remember how often I wished for IS on a tele lens, and even on my kit lens. Granted, the 70-200mm f/4 has stellar image quality, BUT if you go strictly handheld and tend to shoot under less-than-ideal conditions, the 70-300mm will get you more keepers.

Buy 70-200 L IS.

For fast subjects, the 70-300mm would fare worse than the 70-200mm because of the smaller aperture. IS only reduces camera shake but cannot stop subject movement. But if you were really into fast-action close-range sports, events and reasonably near wildlife, you'd probably want a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS anyway. But let's not go there. :devil: That lens is very expensive.

It's worth it.

I'd suggest getting the 70-300mm or 70-200mm first and upgrade down the track when you know what you really want to shoot. Some people may eventually decide that these lenses are either too long or too short for their shooting habits.

Don't Waste your time and money. Take the plunge and train your arm muscles.

 

[Sandman77]

I do have Both F4 and F2.8 Is ..

Like the F4 for the light weight... Pic are very Sharp.. Love it..

Love the 2.8 Is .. Even it weight like a Bomb .. and i got to break my back to carrie the lens ard . I will .. U will know why when u look at the Pic ... Smooth like Butter ....

If .. I were you .. I will save the Money and go for the 2.8 Is ,
Yes its very Expensive .. But save u alot from upgrading ..

75-300 --> 70-200(F4) --> 70-200(F2.8) --> 70-200 (F2.8 Is)
or .
18-55 --> 70-200 (F4 or Any of the 3 lens Above)

try not to upgrade too much as u waste quite abit of money when u sell You old lens off ..

Save and Go for the Best of when u want.

All The Best

 

[fWord]

Assuming that you know the 70-200mm range on a 1.6X crop camera will give you what's needed, then there's a good reason for you to save and go straight for the f/2.8 IS version. However, I worry that you may land up in my shoes and find the range awkward. In the end I was forced to sell the 70-200mm f/4 and get a 100-400mm, which I felt might give me the reach I needed.

Unless you can try a lens out extensively first before buying it (and I mean using it in a variety of conditions over a period of time), you may never be quite sure if it's right for you or not. And if you were to take the plunge on the most expensive version in that range, and find out it's the wrong choice, it would have been costly.

Looking on the bright side, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is a very popular lens and will sell easily. Just be prepared to lose $200-300 on the sale, as I did for my lens.