Longer than 200mm.. (Canon)

V

vaizki

Messages
1,048
Name
Jukka
Edit My Images
No
Right now for the longer reach, I have the 7D and a Canon 70-200/4L IS but I find myself having the 1.4x TC on it more often than not. And still sometimes I am asking for more reach when looking at the photos. With the TC I'm let down by the autofocus and IQ at f/5.6 (wide open) isn't so great. So I need to rethink my choice of lens and add a new one.

I've owned the basic 70-300 IS as well as the DO version, neither is up to par in terms of IQ.. or maybe it was just so long ago that my technique was still utter crap :thinking:

Also it's pretty much a given that I'm going to need at least 2 longer lenses.. but which ones?

I don't have a singular application in mind, I shoot life as it happens.. however often this means wildlife, including birds. There's also kids, tennis practise, dogs playing in the lake, a house on fire 2 blocks away, a friend's wedding, a plane in the sky.. some boats there and a dragonfly out on that lilypad..Well you get the idea, 2-3 lenses to cover everything.

So right now I'm thinking if I should bump my 70-200 to the new II-version of the 2.8L IS and get a second longer prime lens (300/4, 400/5.6 or even a Sigma 300/2.8 come to mind) to accompany. Or if I should go for the 100-400 (which I've used but not too fond of the pump zoom or the IQ in 400 @ 5.6) and then what?

I'm kind of a shaky hands guy and almost never ever have a tripod with me though I sometimes have a monopod, so IS would be a definite plus for me. Budgetwise I can't spring for a Canon 300/2.8.. yet...

Oh and I have a 100/2.8 Macro also, it can be counted as a longer lens maybe :)
 
I'd go with the 400/5.6L to be honest.
 
Obvious answer is the 100-400L but if you don't like that and can stretch to the new 70-200L 2.8 MkII, that offers similar performance with extenders and is of course sensational without.

300L 4 is nice but not that long. With an extender it has similar performance to the 100-400L. 400L 5.6 is also nice but no IS and doesn't focus very close.

If you want a real leg up in quality it's probably the 300L 2.8 IS. Also great with extenders.

The-digital-picture.com is good for long lens tests and comparisons. Maybe hire a couple to see how you get on?
 
Thanks for the suggestions so far guys, the 400/5.6 is tempting but the lack of IS has me thinking. And thanks for rubbing in the 300/2.8L, maybe I should just take the plunge.. :'(

I would hire the lenses in a second if it was reasonably possible here in Finland where I live. There's only a couple of places that hire out lenses, and they either don't have longer teles or they charge around 10% of the lens price as a daily hire rate.

It's cheaper to buy a lens from Mr. Kerr and sell it almost-new on a local forum than to rent it out for more than a day. Not to mention that if I decide to keep it, it's already in the house.. which makes it very dangerous for your wallet :bang:
 
I'm surprised you have trouble with the autofocus and IQ, I have the same set up (70-20 F4 IS and TC 1.4), and ok it's a tad slower in low light but not too much. You say you have shaky hands, if so, is it that you are getting image blurring due to that at lower speeds? If so then bumping up to a heavier/longer/slower lens is only going to cause you more problems. maybe using the tripod/monopod more regularly would help the IQ (though I do understand that it is no help for added length)
 
It may help if you say how much you have to spend on a camera and if you are prepared to consider 3rd party lenses such as Sigma for example. I have the Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 OS lens OK it may not be the fastest but for the price I find is a very good lens.
Realspeed
 
I'm ready to consider a Sigma tele, previously was not too fond of the brand having owned and sold on a number of Sigma zooms. However my 30/1.4 Sigma seems to be an excellent performer so I'm ready to give them the benefit of the doubt.

As to longer and slower, right now most of my shooting is at 200 x 1.4 = 280mm with maximum aperture of 5.6 .. I would definitely want longer at 5.6 (400/5.6) or faster at 300mm (300/4 or 300/2.8). Not that much light here in Finland unfortunately, so f/5.6 or faster is a must.

I've looked at the comparison on the-digital-picture, and the 400/5.6 seems to be an excellent performer wide open.

Right now I'm tentatively settling on the 400/5.6 and lugging the monopod along more faithfully. And later bumping the 70-200 to the new 2.8 II version for a general walkabout lens. Then again the 300/2.8 is not far from the combined investment.. :thinking:
 
vaizki said:
I'm ready to consider a Sigma tele, previously was not too fond of the brand having owned and sold on a number of Sigma zooms. However my 30/1.4 Sigma seems to be an excellent performer so I'm ready to give them the benefit of the doubt.

As to longer and slower, right now most of my shooting is at 200 x 1.4 = 280mm with maximum aperture of 5.6 .. I would definitely want longer at 5.6 (400/5.6) or faster at 300mm (300/4 or 300/2.8). Not that much light here in Finland unfortunately, so f/5.6 or faster is a must.

I've looked at the comparison on the-digital-picture, and the 400/5.6 seems to be an excellent performer wide open.

Right now I'm tentatively settling on the 400/5.6 and lugging the monopod along more faithfully. And later bumping the 70-200 to the new 2.8 II version for a general walkabout lens. Then again the 300/2.8 is not far from the combined investment.. :thinking:
Click to expand...

It's not easy is it ;) I wish Canon would put IS on the 400L.

300L 2.8 is a wonderous thing and would surely answer all your needs, but is a heck of a lot of money and a heavy thing to lug around all day. You'd likely want to park it on a monpod anyway. If you're feeling brave, they do sell on very easily for close to new values. Not that you'd ever sell it... :D Have you tried one? I dare you!

If 300mm is enough most of the time, the 300L 4 plus 1.4x now and then would seem to have most of the answers. But if you treat yourself to a nice carbon monopod, light and packs short with a QR clamp, the 400L 5.6 would be a the longer solution.

Not sure you'd be happy with a Sigma from what you've said. The cost is appealing and you'd get the reach, but the IQ?
 
So now I've gone and done it, asked for a quote on the EF 300/2.8 after all.. :cuckoo:
 
.. and after receiving said quote, which has gone seriously up from just one month ago, I have come to my financial senses and gone for the most versatile general use lens - 70-200/2.8L IS II for now. On order from the always obliging and fast as lightning Mr. Kerr :)

I did add the 2x TC as the price was more than reasonable, let's see how crap the images are at 400mm/5.6. Or what I can do with cropping from 18Mpx at 280mm and f/4..

The 400/5.6 money is saved towards a future 300/2.8 purchase, although I sincerely hope that exchange rates for the Euro brighten up a bit soon.
 
vaizki said:
.. and after receiving said quote, which has gone seriously up from just one month ago, I have come to my financial senses and gone for the most versatile general use lens - 70-200/2.8L IS II for now. On order from the always obliging and fast as lightning Mr. Kerr :)

I did add the 2x TC as the price was more than reasonable, let's see how crap the images are at 400mm/5.6. Or what I can do with cropping from 18Mpx at 280mm and f/4..

The 400/5.6 money is saved towards a future 300/2.8 purchase, although I sincerely hope that exchange rates for the Euro brighten up a bit soon.
Click to expand...

I have the 70-200/2.8L IS II and am thinking about getting a 2x TC so would love to know what you think of that combination.
 
vaizki said:
An interesting lens indeed.. would a Canon TC 1.4x II be worse on this than Sigma's own TC?
Click to expand...

interesting indeed, its my favoured lens on the 1D at the moment. phenominally sharp.

i wouldnt imagine so, but cant really comment as i have the sigma version and never tried the canon version. might be worth waiting for someone to confirm that..
 
We've had this Sigma 120-300 2.8 debate before.

It's a very versatile lens, but optically it can't hold a candle to the Canon 300L 2.8.

As you might expect from such an ambitious spec, at half the price.
 
Normally I would suggest either the 300 f/4 IS or the 400 f/5.6 but if you are going for the 70-200 f/2.8 I would definately go for the 400L.
 
HoppyUK said:
I wish Canon would put IS on the 400L.
Click to expand...
Nah, that would take away the whole point of the lens.

The 400mm f/5.6 L is optimised to do one thing very well. It's the ideal birds-in-flight lens. It's very light, crazy sharp, amazingly fast to focus, and who cares about focusing on anythng closer than about 8m. It does that by being very very simple optically - it only has 7 glass elements, compared to 15-20 for other telephoto lenses.

Put IS in it, and it becomes a completely different lens. I'm not saying a 400mm f/5.6 L IS wouldn't be desirable, but it certainly wouldn't have the attractions that the current lens does.
 
StewartR said:
Nah, that would take away the whole point of the lens.

The 400mm f/5.6 L is optimised to do one thing very well. It's the ideal birds-in-flight lens. It's very light, crazy sharp, amazingly fast to focus, and who cares about focusing on anythng closer than about 8m. It does that by being very very simple optically - it only has 7 glass elements, compared to 15-20 for other telephoto lenses.

Put IS in it, and it becomes a completely different lens. I'm not saying a 400mm f/5.6 L IS wouldn't be desirable, but it certainly wouldn't have the attractions that the current lens does.
Click to expand...

Although I see where you're coming from I don't think it would be as clear cut as that. Just look at the 300 f/4 and f/4 IS. Almost identical in physical characteristics (weight and size) as well as optical ability. I can't quite see how sticking IS (yes you would have to change the optics inside a bit) will make it a completely different lens.

Personally I think part of the reason is it could compete with other parts of their range if it was sold at a similar price. At the moment it is ringed by a 300 f/4 IS (with a 1.4 TC it is an IS 400L with slight quality loss), a 400 f/2.8 IS and a 500 f/4 IS. Stick IS on the 400 f/5.6 and (aside from probably causing the price to increase to £1.5k) a lot of people will probably go for the 400L instead of the pricier lenses.
 
Amp34 said:
Although I see where you're coming from I don't think it would be as clear cut as that. Just look at the 300 f/4 and f/4 IS. Almost identical in physical characteristics (weight and size) as well as optical ability. I can't quite see how sticking IS (yes you would have to change the optics inside a bit) will make it a completely different lens.

Personally I think part of the reason is it could compete with other parts of their range if it was sold at a similar price. At the moment it is ringed by a 300 f/4 IS (with a 1.4 TC it is an IS 400L with slight quality loss), a 400 f/2.8 IS and a 500 f/4 IS. Stick IS on the 400 f/5.6 and (aside from probably causing the price to increase to £1.5k) a lot of people will probably go for the 400L instead of the pricier lenses.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that simple either. I think it's just not that high on Canon's priority list. If they made a MkII version today, it would be very different, especially as the 400L 5.6 is just about their oldest L prime - introduced in 1993. The 300L 4 IS came in '97 and the 100-400L also with IS in '98. And in addition to all those options you've listed, there's the 400L 4 IS DO, so it's kind of hard to complain too much.

On top of that, if you look at the options available using extenders with, say, the new MkII 70-200 2.8 and the 300L 2.8, you could get everything covered to a very high standard from 70-600mm f/2.8-5.6. Only two lenses, a pair of extenders, and change from £6k. For a professional, that's cheap as chips.

Unfortunately, I'm not a professional but while I am in complaining mood, the lens I would ideally like is a 500L 5.6 IS. If they can do something as complex as the new MkII 70-200 2.8 for under £2k, it should be quite affordable, and surely a biffing birders delight. Wouldn't sell in anything like the same quantities though, and I think volume production has a big impact on price.

It's all good fun though. Thankfully, we have the nice Mr StewartR to hire stuff from at sensible money :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top