Thinking of a telephoto lens, which one?

D

dellydel

Messages
166
Name
Dale
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys,

I have a Canon 60D with 18-55 kit lens and Sigma 10-20 WA lens. Walking around the 18-55mm is pretty good, but I am thinking I would like more zoom!

I am toying with the idea of either...

Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6
Canon 70-200 L F4

Now obviously the L lens is better in sharpness and image quality, but from what I have read the 70-300 isn't that far behind up to about 200mm then goes a bit soft thereafter.

I am thinking the extra 100mm might be handy and its £100 cheaper, but, I don't quite understand how the two lenses react on my cropped sensor? Does it narrow down the angle of view or does it magnify the focal distance by x1.6? Is this a bad thing? Am I better off using an EF-S lens?

Sorry for so many questions but any advice really appreciated or alternative lens suggestions are welcome i.e sigma, tamron etc.

Cheers,

Del
 
70-200 f/4. Absolutely fantastic lens.
 
70-200 f/4 was THE reason I switched back to Canon from Nikon... its an amazing lens.
The only reason I am parting with mine is because I got its bigger F/2.8 brother.

I use it with my 50D with no problem at all.

Go for the 70-200 and if you need the extra length get yourself a TC :-) I have used a cheapo jessops one and kenko ones with no problem!
 
+4. 5 or 6! It's the best bang for your buck in the Canon line-up.
 
Well that's unanimous!

The only thing I worry about is not having the IS, I can't afford that version!
 
What do you shoot? I've always found IS to be an overrated feature.
 
+1 I have OS on my 17-70 sigma and could live without it happily!

The ONLY time i've thought IS might have been useful was at my friends wedding in the dark church, but then I whacked the ISO up and could live with the results!

I can see how it's useful for professionals though
 
adamdavi3s said:
+1 I have OS on my 17-70 sigma and could live without it happily!

The ONLY time i've thought IS might have been useful was at my friends wedding in the dark church, but then I whacked the ISO up and could live with the results!

I can see how it's useful for professionals though
Click to expand...

Your situation is a bit different. IS is not as important on the wide end of a lens but it would be invaluable on the long end. I find the IS on my 70-200 to be extremely useful.
 
Ahh fair enough, that does make sense! Everything I shoot at the long end is sports so I don't really have call for it.

Interested to hear what the OP wants to shoot :)
 
Efs and EF lens focal ranges are the same, they do not change because one is efs and one EF. You have to multiply both by 1.6.
 
Thanks for the responses!

Not looking to shoot any subject in particular, but maily for walking about landscape and wildlife with occasional sports / movement which means the IS would be a bonus! I guess I need to try them both and judge for myself!

Oddjim - but if I shot both lenses at say 200mm, wouldn't the subject appear a different scale in each frame?
 
Ah, I see! Thanks Arad,

So basically there won't be any difference if, for arguments sake, I had a 70-200 EF lens and a 70-200 EFS lens, the final image would come out the same. It's only when you put an EF lens on a larger sensor camera i.e. 35mm you get a wider field of view?

Cheers,

Del
 
Last edited:
Correct :)
 
bit of an update!

I decided that I would save a few quid and go with either the canon 70-300 or the Tamron 70-300. Ideally I wanted the Tamron but I have the opportunity to get the canon at a bargain price. However, I wanted to know how using a polarising filter on the canon with its rotating barrell will cause problems? I have read that it can make things difficult but don't understand why, can anyone help?
 
dellydel said:
However, I wanted to know how using a polarising filter on the canon with its rotating barrell will cause problems? I have read that it can make things difficult but don't understand why, can anyone help?
Click to expand...
Because you have to rotate the polarising filter to a position for maximum effect. If every time you focus/zoom the front element rotates, you have to reposition the polarising filter which takes both time and can slightly knock the focus, meaning you might either lose the shot or have to refocus... All of this goes away with a non-rotating barrel as you just set the filter and leave it there.
 
dellydel said:
bit of an update!

I decided that I would save a few quid and go with either the canon 70-300 or the Tamron 70-300. Ideally I wanted the Tamron but I have the opportunity to get the canon at a bargain price....?
Click to expand...

If you can get the Canon 70-300IS for a bargin price, then get it. I've one and it's very good, you'll be very happy with it and the IS does help at the far end of the reach.
 
Wow, fast responses, thanks guys!

They are certainly both very capable lenses and I would be more than happy with either, but the only thing that puts me off is the rotating barrel as I will most likely be using a CPL for shooting rivers / lakes!

Mmmmm, decisions!
 
I've got a 70-200 f4 non IS at the moment and it's a great lens. Light enough to carry around all day and IQ is brilliant. I'm actually debating on whether to sell this lens and my MP-E65 and go for a 70-200 2.8 IS version though. It's a great lens though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top