Canon Zoom Lenses...

TheNissanMan

TheNissanMan

Messages
4,189
Name
Ryan
Edit My Images
Yes
Probably another stupidquestion so please humour me :)

I want to build my lens collection and as this year I intend todo a few motorsport events the first lens I want to upgrade is the zoom...

All the reviews and comments I have seen for the Tamron 70-300mm zoom lens you get in the bundles are average to naff!

Just how much better would I be with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens?

I'm guessing probably asking a question which is like comparing a Lada to a Rolls but is it really the case?

The other half of the question to make me look even dumber (if at all possible) is just how good is the IS functionality, looking on the Jessops website without IS the lens is half the price! If you were shooting from a tripod would this really matter?
 
the 70-200 f/4L is an amazingly sharp lens with very quick zoom, its only downside is that its only an f/4 lens, however that is faster than the 70-300 tamron anyway so its not really an issue here.
on a tripod the IS should always be turned off anyway as it "fights" the tripod and induces vibrations.

while i have not triied the tamron 70-300 i would very strongly recommend the canon 70-200 f/4L
 
I have just upgraded from the sigma 70-300 APO lens which is considered pretty good to the 70-200 f4L USM and the difference indeed amazing! Build quality on the canon is amazing! For motorsport the IS probably wouldn't help that much as it is more to help shooting stationary objects to reduce camera shake and allow a lowe f no. to be used in poor light.

Basically get the L series lens even if you have to sell a kidney! After all you have got two of them!!
 
LOL,thanks for the answers, will dbl check which bonus I get on payday to check which lens I get :)
 
If you can afford it, go for the Canon L stuff, if not, the Sigma 70-300mm APO is the one to go for. Plenty of bang for your £ and it's the exact same thing I did....used the Sigma until I could afford the Canon!!

In fact, I've got a Sigma for sale atm....just see the link in my thread!! ;)
 
I don't buy into the Canon L series glass being extra special, it will be better than the tamron, but it doesn't make the tea and clean the house!

The Canon 70-200 f4 seems to be sharper than the f2.8 wide open but it isn't as sharp as the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 in comparative tests (see DPReview to compare the Nik vs Canon f2.8). Bear in mind both lenses were designed for Full-frame - they don't have sufficient resolution to out-resolve the APS-C format sensors. For example, a Canon 500D at 15MP has the same pixel density as a 38.4MP Full-frame sensor. I don't think anyone would be surprised if 38.4MP was 'too much' for some of the lenses and yet thinks 15MP on APS-C would be okay!

The Olympus 50-200 f2.8-3.5 is noticeably sharper wide-open by eye, never mind test charts and I suspect the equivalent Pentax will be too - but they were designed for a smaller sensor circle and a correspondingly higher resolution.

I'm not saying the Canon 70-200 f4 is a bad lens - it is excellent on a full-frame body and pretty good on APS-C, but keep things in perspective!

You do get better build quality and weather sealing. It is worth seeking out comparative reviews of the better Tamron, Sigma and other 3rd party manufacturers rather than just assuming Canon L series must be stellar. Some in the range are in this class - others are plainly not.

Andy
 
Thanks for the response, was going to be getting the L Series but may now shop around!!

One thing that you do bring up in that post is APS-C & full frame... As a noob thats right over my head...
 
AndyElliott said:
You do get better build quality and weather sealing. It is worth seeking out comparative reviews of the better Tamron, Sigma and other 3rd party manufacturers rather than just assuming Canon L series must be stellar. Some in the range are in this class - others are plainly not.

Andy
Click to expand...
the canon 70-200F/4L and 70-200F/2.8L do not have weathersealing, only the IS versions of each do!
 
alastairb said:
the canon 70-200F/4L and 70-200F/2.8L do not have weathersealing, only the IS versions of each do!
Click to expand...

Thank you - I stand augmented :D. The Oly stuff is simpler - everything is weather sealed apart from the 'standard' range (i.e. pro and top-pro) - but then their DSLR legacy is only about 6 years....

Andy
 
Thanks for that scarecrow although I had to giggle, I know I must have asked some stupid questions on this forum but even I'm not stupid enough to go buy a Nikon lens for my Canon although am guessing theres an available adapter somewhere lol :)
 
TheNissanMan said:
Thanks for the response, was going to be getting the L Series but may now shop around!!

One thing that you do bring up in that post is APS-C & full frame... As a noob thats right over my head...
Click to expand...


Your camera has an APS-C sensor - a so-called 'crop' sensor because it is smaller than the so-called 'full frame' 35mm sensor (which are about the size of an old 35mm film negative). The aspect ratio of the sensor (its width vs its height) 3:2 - this is the same for the full and APS-C sensors.

The crop factor is 1.6 for Canon APS-C cameras - so each side of the sensor rectangle is 1.6x smaller than the 35mm full-frame sensor. This means the area of the APS-C sensor is 1.6x1.6x smaller or 2.56x smaller.

...

So, a 10MP full-frame sensor has pixels that are 2.56x bigger than the pixels on a 10MP APS-C sensor. Or another way of thinking about it is, the pixels of the size they are on an APS-C 10MP sensor would fill a full-frame sensor with 25.6 million pixels.

The impact this has on lenses is... If your lens has just enough resolution (has been engineered in such a way) as to be able to show a detail that covers just one pixel on the full-frame, it implies that if you have a full-frame sensor with more pixels, your lens will be the limiting feature here and you won't be able to see any more detail in your pictures. The lens is designed with a target resolution in mind - to make it 'sharper' - i.e. so it can resolve smaller details, would make the lens more expensive, possibly bigger too and require the use of specialised glass.

If you then put the same lens on your APS-C sensor camera with the same number of pixels as your full-frame sensor, the smallest detail the lens can 'see' will be spread over 2.56 pixels of your APS-C sensor. To make use of your smaller sensor, you need a lens capable of 'seeing' these much smaller details. This is a bit simplified as there are other factors such as fill-factor, diffraction limits, AA filters etc., but it is broadly correct.

The reality is that most lenses that work on full-frame and APS-C body cameras have more detail-resolving capability than the current full-frame sensors and less than the current APS-C sensor cameras (You may notice that the number of pixels in a full-frame body is usually a lot less than 2.56x more than the APS-C bodies).

This is why in controlled tests (see DPReview as an example), they will do two tests, one with an APS-C body and one with a full-frame body. You will notice the same lens appears to be much 'sharper' on the full frame body than on the APS-C body for the same aperture and focal length value. This is no surprise given the lower demands on the 'smallest level of detail' that the lens must resolve on the full-frame body rather than the APS-C body. If you add in a teleconverter, the demands on the lens sharpness are even more acute.

Canon do have EF-S lenses, designed to be APS-C-only lenses. These are designed to only focus light over the smaller APS-C sensor (this circle of projected light is known as the image circle) and can be made smaller and use less glass. They can also be designed to cram more detail into the smaller image circle without making the costs go astronomic.

Unfortunately, Canon want you to have your APS-C camera then move onto the full-frame cameras in time (for very understandable commercial reasons). As such, they have not made the effort to produce many top-notch APS-C only lenses - they would prefer just to make the full-frame L-series lenses. They don't work as well on the APS-C cameras as the full-frame - they were designed for full frame. To design a full-frame lens with the resolving power for the highest resolution APS-C cameras would be 'wasted' if it was used on the current full frame cameras and would make the lenses prohibitively large, heavy and expensive.

I hope that goes some way to explain the full-frame vs APS-C and what relevance it has to your lens choice...

Andy
 
malla1962 said:
Weather sealing is irrelevant when your using it on a none sealed body
Click to expand...

No, but it is if you are thinking of using it on one in the future and don't want to buy new lenses.
 
scarecrow said:
That's not a particularly helpful comment, as the Nikon lens won't fit his camera!
Click to expand...

I didn't think TheNissanMan would think that was possible, but the point I was making is that don't be fooled by thinking Canon L glass is on some special astral plane above all else!

TheNissanMan said:
Thanks for that scarecrow although I had to giggle, I know I must have asked some stupid questions on this forum but even I'm not stupid enough to go buy a Nikon lens for my Canon although am guessing theres an available adapter somewhere lol :)
Click to expand...

I didn't think you were that stupid either! :D

Have you seen this: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html

Quite funny how the Nikkor zoom outdoes a Canon prime on a Canon body...

My point stands: Don't be fooled by religious conviction that one brand's offerings will always be the best.

Edit: Apart from specific requirements surrounding wildlife photography, I chose Olympus because of their excellent lenses - there are a couple of duffers in the lineup (which are, at worst, average) - but there are some truly amazing ones in there. The other reason is because I'd rather not be in either the Nikon or Canon camp - some of whose members dislike the other camp for seemingly religious rather than rational reasons
 
alastairb said:
its only downside is that its only an f/4 lens
Click to expand...

Only f/4? Remember that it's f/4 all the way through the focal range unlike many, many other telephoto zooms! I do agree though that the 70-200mm f/4 L is a notoriously sharp and brilliant lens. Don't own one myself but have used 'em on several occasions and if I ever found myself in the need for a high end telephoto this (or maybe the f/4 L IS) would be the one for me :thumbs:
 
Another thing you need to consider, f4 lenses (or f5.6) are 'slower' than f2.8 lenses, that is they don't focus as fast, also with a 2.8 lens, you can shoot faster shutter speeds (if shooting at f2.8), additionally f2.8 provides a better background blur than F4, these 3 factors can be important for the type of photography you are aiming for (motorsports)

While canon L glass is generally very good, I would consider third party lenses also, the sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a peach of a lens, and sometime in the future you could get a 1.4 TC to extend the reach.
 
Les McLean said:
Another thing you need to consider, f4 lenses (or f5.6) are 'slower' than f2.8 lenses, that is they don't focus as fast, also with a 2.8 lens, you can shoot faster shutter speeds (if shooting at f2.8), additionally f2.8 provides a better background blur than F4, these 3 factors can be important for the type of photography you are aiming for (motorsports)

While canon L glass is generally very good, I would consider third party lenses also, the sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a peach of a lens, and sometime in the future you could get a 1.4 TC to extend the reach.
Click to expand...

Yes - the sharper the lens is on its own (particularly if it's a bright one), the better it will stand a TC.
 
TC????

Am picking things up slowly so sorry for the numerous what could be stupid questions!
 
TheNissanMan

Had another thought...
It's worth familiarising yourself with the various manufacturers' nomenclature. For example, Sigma have DG and DC letters in the names of most of their lenses. The DC (also known as 'digitally crippled' by IMHO ignorant folk, but it's a good mnemonic) are APS-C only lenses like EF-S Canon ones. The DG are the full-frame variety.
 
V Handy to know before I blow a load of cash on the wrong lenses, although am guessing that would have been pointed out pretty quickly lol...

Thinking along those lines would I therefore be better saving cash and going for something like a Canon EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS than going down the L series line then or would there still be benefits of still going down the L series line?
 
TheNissanMan said:
V Handy to know before I blow a load of cash on the wrong lenses, although am guessing that would have been pointed out pretty quickly lol...

Thinking along those lines would I therefore be better saving cash and going for something like a Canon EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS than going down the L series line then or would there still be benefits of still going down the L series line?
Click to expand...
55-250 is a pretty slow focusing lens.
 
L range it is then, which I guess makes more sense in the long term as I can always keep them if I ever upgrade the camera :)
 
Like I said, unfortunately most of the EF-S lenses are not so great in spec or performance - Canon would like you to buy the L!
 
AndyElliott said:
Like I said, unfortunately most of the EF-S lenses are not so great in spec or performance - Canon would like you to buy the L!
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. I'd argue the EFS 10-22 and EFS 17-55 rival L glass for IQ. They use the same 'Super UD' elements as L series lenses. Canon just wont label EFS lenses 'L' for commercial reasons.

efs 17-55mm IS http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

efs 10-22mm http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

efs 60mm 2.8 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-60mm-f-2.8-Macro-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

efs 15-85 IS http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

A lot of EFS lenses are far better than their EF counterparts.
 
odd jim said:
Hmmmm. I'd argue the EFS 10-22 and EFS 17-55 rival L glass for IQ. They use the same UD glass as L series lenses. Canon just wont label EFS lenses 'L' for commercial reasons.

A lot of EFS lenses are far better than their EF counterparts!
Click to expand...

Agreed - I used the word 'most' - and referring to spec as well as performance - some of the EF-S lenses are very good. Compare that with all of the Zuiko Digital fourthirds lenses, also designed for a smaller sensor (the aspect ratio differences make the fourthirds sensor seem smaller than it is, it's only 13mm high vs Canon APS-C at 14.9mm). They are all very good/excellent with maybe one or two merely 'good' - check out any independent review. But then Olympus isn't trying to get you to buy lenses made for 35mm frame sensors! All of the Pro and Top-Pro lenses are weather sealed to a degree where you can rinse them under a tap.

Now if you could get any of the Zuiko Digital Super-High Grade (aka Top-Pro) mounted on your APS-C Canon, you'd really be cooking! I have the 14-35 f2 and the 300 f2.8 and they are really special (okay, bl**dy expensive too).

Andy

Edit: The performance of the 15-85 is very good, but at f5.6 at the long end, I wouldn't call it a top-spec
 
^ agreed.

But back to efs (and other APS-C only variants) lenses - I believe there is a lot of camera snobbery at play when they are sometimes pushed aside in favour of full frame, even L series lenses. If you own an APS-C camera and all the above lenses, there is no need to 'upgrade' to a FF body IMO! Chuck in a 70-200 L or 100-400 L with that lot and I could never see myself wanting more!
 
odd jim said:
^ agreed.

But back to efs lenses - I believe there is a lot of camera snobbery at play when they are sometimes pushed aside in favour of full frame, even L series lenses. If you own an APS-C camera and all the above lenses, there is no need to 'upgrade' to a FF body IMO! Chuck in a 70-200 L or 100-400 L with that lot and I could never see myself wanting more!
Click to expand...


Absolutely... I have chosen a system without a 'full frame' route - and it wasn't because I hadn't noticed. The problem with the EF-S lenses is that although you could marry them to a 7D body, you won't get a weather sealed system, because Canon won't make a weather sealed EF-S lens because they want you to go 'full frame' (what is medium format - really full frame :cuckoo: ) and L series. In effect, Canon perpetuates the snobbery by not producing EF-S 'L' lenses (they could paint your 10-22 white and weather seal it!).

Full frame is far from a panacea - worse (I'm not saying APS-C or fourthirds is perfect, just better overall) vignetting, worse corner sharpness, great tendency for lateral CA and fringing.

The Depth of Field thing is an interesting one. Shallow is great for portraiture (although not essential) but bad for macro and being able to use long telephotos at full aperture (and get all of the bit of wildlife you are shooting sharp). So Full-frame is better at some things and worse at others. The extra reach of the crop-sensors is great for wildlife too.

Add in weight and size and the reason why APS-C is not about to disappear is fairly evident. Anyone who tells you that full-frame is taking over and APS-C is dead is, frankly, barking...

Andy
 
AndyElliott said:
The problem with the EF-S lenses is that although you could marry them to a 7D body, you won't get a weather sealed system, because Canon won't make a weather sealed EF-S lens because they want you to go 'full frame'

Add in weight and size and the reason why APS-C is not about to disappear is fairly evident. Anyone who tells you that full-frame is taking over and APS-C is dead is, frankly, barking...

Andy
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree, with some of your statements. There's a large rumour mill about canon saying they moving away from cropped sensors and wanting everyone to move to full frame thats :cuckoo:

The 1D (1.3x crop) series of camera's have been around for ages aimed at the sports photographer, that will continue, just the same as the APS-C sensor range of camera's, so full frame will only be part of the range.

Forget about weather sealed for a canon 500D. The only true weather sealed canon camera's are the 1D series and selected L series lenses, plus a filter to complete the seal process. Even the 7D only has 90's weather seal protection, equivalent to EOS 1N.

But the OP was asking what lens to get for motorsport and most post have completely missed the point.

First of all, a budget would be helpful, £300 - £3000, very large difference.

Most of the race track I visit (unless your a media tog) has large safety barriers and fencing obstructing you view. Hence a 70-200mm or even a 70-300mm lens won't cut the mustard. You'll need minimum of 300mm, if not 400-500mm

So second question would be, track or rally. 70-200 would be perfect for rally shots, but very limited for say Silverstone, Donnington, parts of Brands hatch etc, so this would establish the zoom range or perhaps a prime.

Unfortunately for motorsport, fast glass tends to be the must... my current setup for motorsport is 1D MKIIn + 300mm f2.8, 20D with either a 300mm f4 or the 70-200mm f2.8 IS (plus 1.4x TC for the primes)

Ok the prime route is what I've chosen, but 2 other lenses of merit for motorsport would be the sigma 100-300mm f4 or if you can stretch the budget the sigma 120-300mm f2.8

On a budget, the sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 seems to be the affordable approach for many, but that's £600, the only other lens of merit is the 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS at around £400.

But we need abit of help from the OP as to actually what he can afford and wants.
 
pete.rush said:
But the OP was asking what lens to get for motorsport and most post have completely missed the point.
Click to expand...

For that reason, if you are going for Canon L lenses, I would have suggested the 100-400mm. As this is one of the few that is long enough for any motorsport unless you have pit passes and can get inside the safety catch fencing. Even then, you are still behind the tyre walls and a long way from the action in most racing.

So, if it is a choice between 70-200L, 55-250 cheapo, and 70-300 IS - I would probably go for the cheapest as none of them will get you the results you want!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top