70-200 on 5D MK II

rtjdesign

rtjdesign

Suspended / Banned
Messages
817
Name
Ryan
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking at getting a new telephoto for my 5D MK II.

I have been thinking whether I need something with more reach than a Canon 70-200 f4.

Or would you reccomend more a Sigma 100-300.

Or even a canon 100-400?

It would be primarily for wildlife so outdoors so I would say light is not much of an issue especially with the lack of Noise even at higher levels of ISO on the MK II.

Suggestions?
 
Not a canon shooter but i recently bought a 70-200vr2 for use on my d700 and found it alot shorter than i expected.
This may be down to using a d90 before and tryong my mates d300 with 70-300 fitted.

Recently tryed a d2x(i think it was) with 80-400 and that was alot better reach,but sadly focas was alot slower than my set up plus was a 4.5-6.5 lens not 2.8
 
Yeah,

I used to have a canon 50d and a sigma 70-200 2.8 which was a great focal length for alot of wildlife.

But I've now lost the 1.6 crop sensor and got the 5D, so I just want to make sure I can still get the reach I need for alot of the bird and wildlife photography.

What are peoples opinions of the canon 70-300L lens. I am set on getting an L series lens.
 
I use a 70-200f2.8 on my 5DMkII which has enough reach for me - but then I use it for portraiture.
It also worked ok at Oulton Park which has reasonably close access for motorsport.
However, I would have thought that for wildlife it may be a bit short on it's own - depending on what you are shooting. Perhaps consider an extender which wouldn't lose you too much speed.
If you are going longer you really need to know that the quality of the glass will do the 5D justice. My limited experience of Sigma is that it will have to be an EX for anything like quality at wide apertures.

The 100/400 'L' Canon is widely regarded as a quality lens at a not too exorbitant price - relatively speaking, of course
 
Yeah I am trying to work it out at the moment.

My gut instinct is telling me the 70-200 f4 with a 1.4x converter would work great. Do you have any experience of that on the 5D?

Over the 100-400 which I know has a problem with dust getting in due to the zooming feature, and its a bit more than I wish to spend at the moment unless one came up at a good price.

If I managed to get a good condition 70-200 f4 second hand and a teleconverter I could be in alot better position and put the saved money towards a trip.
 
No sorry haven't used a converter with digital - used to use one years ago on Olympus 35mm (200mm f4 with 2 x converter - looked like dusk even in bright sunshine!)

The issues to consider though will be the reduction in speed and the inevitable drop in quality, however small, the extra glass will create.
As you say - the 5D has reasonably good high ISO performance - although I recently did some available light portrait shots at 640iso which at 100% were pretty grainy

The 70-200 f4 L is a really good performer and if you're happy with the speed when attached to a converter - seems like a reasonable choice on a budget
 
cyclamens said:
No sorry haven't used a converter with digital - used to use one years ago on Olympus 35mm (200mm f4 with 2 x converter - looked like dusk even in bright sunshine!)

The issues to consider though will be the reduction in speed and the inevitable drop in quality, however small, the extra glass will create.
As you say - the 5D has reasonably good high ISO performance - although I recently did some available light portrait shots at 640iso which at 100% were pretty grainy

The 70-200 f4 L is a really good performer and if you're happy with the speed when attached to a converter - seems like a reasonable choice on a budget
Click to expand...

Just a side point ISO640 isn't a "real" ISO, which will normally make it noisier than 800
 
amtaylor said:
Just a side point ISO640 isn't a "real" ISO, which will normally make it noisier than 800
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking the current ISO system has been adapted to still digital from the various original film sensitivity measuring systems and was introduced in 1998 - so at best is an interpretation based upon a number of measurements relative to the camera's sensor.
While 640 is not among the 'accepted' real ISO measurements I am interested to know - genuinely, why it would be noisier than 800ISO:shrug:

This article is quite interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#ISO_12232
 
Last edited:
From what I understand and I could be wrong it would be using 800 and then under exposing and boosting which is going to give a slightly noisier result.
 
amtaylor said:
From what I understand and I could be wrong it would be using 800 and then under exposing and boosting which is going to give a slightly noisier result.
Click to expand...

Interesting - I need to give that a try:thumbs:
 
amtaylor said:
From what I understand and I could be wrong it would be using 800 and then under exposing and boosting which is going to give a slightly noisier result.
Click to expand...

No, it's using 800 and Over exposing then darkening to give a slightly less noisy result (with a bit less highlight head room)

It's ISO's 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000 etc that boost upwards leading to more noise.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
rtjdesign said:
Yeah I am trying to work it out at the moment.

My gut instinct is telling me the 70-200 f4 with a 1.4x converter would work great. Do you have any experience of that on the 5D?

Over the 100-400 which I know has a problem with dust getting in due to the zooming feature, and its a bit more than I wish to spend at the moment unless one came up at a good price.

If I managed to get a good condition 70-200 f4 second hand and a teleconverter I could be in alot better position and put the saved money towards a trip.
Click to expand...

The dust thing is a a bit of an urban myth tbh....

The 70-200 with 1.4 is a great combo, but ultimately not long enough for wildlife...

I started this way (with the IS version of the F4) but it really wasn't long enough even on a crop sensor camera...

I have since invested in the 100-400 which I love....

Many examples from both setups on my Flickr...
 
Thanks for the replys, I've learnt something new about the noise anyway!

I ordered the 70-200 and will get a TC. Id rather get myself closer to wildlife than zoom in more anyway and never had a problem with a 70-200 on the crop body of my 50d for flying shots and portraits.

If in future I need the extra reach I will get the 100-400.

The 70-200 sounds like its going to be great for my portraiture at weddings etc, and for alot of the top side photography I do off boats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top