Which telephoto

siejones

siejones

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,547
Edit My Images
No
Ok I want to get a good high optic quality telephoto. I want it to be sharp through out it's focal range and be good enough not to get uselessley poor at it's widest aperture.

Apart from maybe wildlife/zoo's e.t.c I would also need to hump it up hills/mountains to use it for creating nice big pano's. This kind of gives me a restriction on weight. Lumping up my camera/wide angle and tripod is already overweight for hill walking so it just can't be too heavy.

My seemingly perfect solution would seem to be the 70-200 F4L which I am on the edge of getting but I really do think I would miss the 300 focal length and would find it a bit short for sutff other than my landscape stuff and definatly to short for wildlife.

Other than that lens they seem to be either too heavy or not good enough quality.

As I said I am on the edge of getting the 70-200 F4L but I thought I would ask here just in case someone can give me something else to consider before I go ahead.
 
Very similar dilema.
I am caught between the 100-400, 70-200, 70-200 IS.
I see allot of 70-200 returned because seemingly the focal length doesn't quite achieve what they want.
I just can't take my eyes off a 100-400.
Don't get me wrong the 70-200 F4 is a class lens and has the right weight for lumping up hills etc, but I don't want to spend 400notes and then regret it, or want to change in 3 months.
Then there's the cost :)
 
Thats why I got myself a 1.4x Extender II as soon as I ordered my 70-200 f2.8 IS, not quite the same as 300mm or 400mm but does give it that extra reach, while still having a very fast IS lens for closer stuff.
I too was concerned about buying the f4 and then finding that I really needed the f2.8, so decided to make the right choice first time round instead of the hassle of maybe having to sell and then buy, its a big hit on the wallet but never regretted it and hopefully its a lens that I will have for a very long time.

I am considering the 100-400 as a future possibility but I keep getting concerns over the older IS system it has and the slower glass.
 
Out of all the lens's mentioned, I would say the 70-200 f4 is the sharpest. (I used to have one) with the 70-200 f4 IS (my boss has one and I have used it quite a bit) next and the 100-400 after that.(Hod one of those too)

I have a 70-200 2.8 IS and find this better for my needs and I have it partnered with a 1.4 & 2.0 x TC's when needed.

But if your after one long lens and expect to use the 300-400 range a lot buy the 100-400
 
Warspite said:
Thats why I got myself a 1.4x Extender II as soon as I ordered my 70-200 f2.8 IS, not quite the same as 300mm or 400mm but does give it that extra reach, while still having a very fast IS lens for closer stuff.
I too was concerned about buying the f4 and then finding that I really needed the f2.8, so decided to make the right choice first time round instead of the hassle of maybe having to sell and then buy, its a big hit on the wallet but never regretted it and hopefully its a lens that I will have for a very long time.

I am considering the 100-400 as a future possibility but I keep getting concerns over the older IS system it has and the slower glass.
Click to expand...

:agree:

Spot on with my decision making too
 
Thanks for reply's :)

I would like F2.8 but it again is a weight thing. The 100-400 is a very tempting but again heavy. The weight issue is important.

I am beginning to think my only solution is too have both the 70-200 F4 for the hills and a bigger heavier lens for the other stuff but Mr bank manager is now giving me a funny look and waving his finger at me...The B$%&tard!
 
is 70mm really going to be wide enough for the landscape stuff you want to do?
 
Kev Mills said:
is 70mm really going to be wide enough for the landscape stuff you want to do?
Click to expand...

No my 17-40 is for the majority but occasionaly I find myself reaching for telephoto. The biggest reason is because to do big detailed Panos you need to get in a bit. Admittedly I would only need up to 100mm for this.
 
siejones said:
Thanks for reply's :)

I would like F2.8 but it again is a weight thing. The 100-400 is a very tempting but again heavy. The weight issue is important.

I am beginning to think my only solution is too have both the 70-200 F4 for the hills and a bigger heavier lens for the other stuff but Mr bank manager is now giving me a funny look and waving his finger at me...The B$%&tard!
Click to expand...

Remember the Canon 70-200 f2.8 (1470g) is heavier than the 100-400 (1380g), however the 70-200 f4 is a lightweight (705g).

Never really found weight to be an issue although this may vary from person to person. But I have heard alot of people comment on how portable the f4 version to be.
 
Warspite: With mountain walking when the majority of you walk is up hill rangeing from gentle to steep to near vertical scrambling, every ounce counts. So much so that you can spend a hundred pound more on a fleece just because it is a fraction lighter than a fleece of a cheaper make. I would end up either shortening my walks or not taking it with me at all :(

PS: I love the photo titled "fishing" in your gallery....thats a great capture :)
 
siejones said:
Warspite: With mountain walking when the majority of you walk is up hill rangeing from gentle to steep to near vertical scrambling, every ounce counts. So much so that you can spend a hundred pound more on a fleece just because it is a fraction lighter than a fleece of a cheaper make. I would end up either shortening my walks or not taking it with me at all :(
Click to expand...

Bit of an extreme viewpoint, but none the less along the same lines as me.

I only take the 20D + 17-85 wrapped in a polly bag in the top of the rucksack when stomping up and down big muddy/rocky things.

If you are really counting the grams then take a point and shoot then stitch em together when you get home :) [yeah right]

In the end what it comes down to is:
- Are you out for the walk or a photoshoot?
- Can you carrying lose weight elsewhere?
(I've several inches of hard earned beer that I should lose before winging about a kilo of glass)
- Does your missus go with you and can you let her carry it/the sarnies.
 
At the end of the day weight will be an issue with the role in mind, so a lighter lens is great - but only if it will allow you to fulfill the purpose it is used for.

In that respect it will vary from person to person - also with the 70-200 f4 you can still get away with using the 1.4x Extender which will bump it up to f5.6 but give it an equivalent length of 98-280mm, this would have the addition of another 220g to the weight.

It is an unfortunate side effect that the quality of these L lenses is generally paid for by increased weight, lighter lenses tend to be due to cheaper materials and lesser build quality so the balance can be hard to strike for people like yourself.
 
i take the 100-400 hiking with me! if you need the extra support just extend it, lock it out and use as walking stick on those steep climbs!
 
Warspite: I have to emphasise that the focal length of 200mm for the mountains is more than enough. If I had an extender I wouldn't need it for that. In fact I doubt I would prolly get away with only 100mm in the mountains (now theres a thought!)

For wildlife, zoo's e.t.c I would miss the extra length though and would love to 400mm.

I know I am asking for a lot here to cover both bases but this is why I put the feelers out for ideas..so to speak :)

I have boiled down to these options:

- 70-200mm and an extender for the days where weight is not a problem

- 70-200mm and consider the 100-400mm or even a fixed length for again non mountain days. Ouch cost!

- 100mm fixed for mountains (would miss versitlity of zoom though) and 100-400mm for other. Again ouch!


oldgit: I used a P&S for a few years in the hills...As you say great for portabilty but no where good enough for fine detail and IQ for landscape work.

- Both definatly both..neither wins out here :)

- I only ever pack what I need and sometimes less than I ended up needing. Weight is always a crucial factor. My own weight is just about being controlled at the moment :)

- My mountains days are a solitary moments as is with my photography but good thinking :)
 
does it have to be canon? sigma do a 100-300f4 which has a very good reputation. might be worth thinking about?
 
If you're using it on a tripod then the max aperture won't be an issue, and most lenses perform pretty well at f/8 - f/16.

You usually invest in L glass if you need great performance at wide apertures, but since that doesn't apply to you, I'd be looking at cheaper third-party lenses tbh.
 
What about the sigma 70-200 ex dg apo 2.8? Read some good reviews about that today over on dyxum.com
 
I get into the mountains too and do not know why you want to go as long as 200 for! I have not seen mention of wildlife which is the only mountain feature you are likely to go long for.

As your plan is to "build" a picture I think you want to be around 50mm to avoid distortions, etc but a little longer is nice but cannot see this extend beyond 70.

Buy a good 2.8 24-70 and a carbon fibre tripod would be my opinion. You will simply run up those hills! :lol:
 
HIMUPNORTH said:
I get into the mountains too and do not know why you want to go as long as 200 for! I have not seen mention of wildlife which is the only mountain feature you are likely to go long for.

As your plan is to "build" a picture I think you want to be around 50mm to avoid distortions, etc but a little longer is nice but cannot see this extend beyond 70.

Buy a good 2.8 24-70 and a carbon fibre tripod would be my opinion. You will simply run up those hills! :lol:
Click to expand...

I keep being misread here :)

Ok I wanted to cover both bases here. I wanted a telephoto that could cover upto 100mm and to be as light as possible for the mountains. This is not to say this is all I want it for though!

Also I would have liked it to cover the other photographic categories such as wildlife and zoo's e.t.c where it is the longer the better.

I wanted the lens solution that would best cover both. It is a lot to ask and I had already more or less made my mind up the 70-200 was the closest I was gonna get.

Of coarse the ideal solution would be to get a nice big heavy telephoto for one and maybe fixed 85 or 100 for the mountains but I don't have those funds as of yet. I was looking for an all in one that best matched both.

I don't think I mentioned a fast aperture being an issue. Myabe in another thread? Since this post I started a thread about the 200 F2.8. This was when I was considering both that lens and maybe the 85mm for the mountains.

I started this to see if anyone else could give me a better solution and I thank everyone who has tried to help me out here.

Thanks
 
i have the sigma 70-200 HSM EX DG macro and its chuffing heavy...very good, but very heavy
 
HIMUPNORTH said:
If your mind was made up why ask then? :p

In any case I have changed my mind. Kerso has just quoted £65 for a nifty fifty. That'll be your panos sorted :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Was just putting the feelers out :p

Ok heres the plan:

Say I have a view I like. Say it's from the summit of a certain mountain. I can go up with my nifty fifty and shoot it and come back with maybe a 5-6 pics accross and at a push another row deep. This is something I have already done.

This gives me a nice biggish pano. Say I want to print it the size of my wall at home so I can walk up to it and pick out all the individual detail. I still don't have enough resolution.

To get this resolution I need more shots. To get more shots I need a smaller field of view and thus a longer focal length. I don't think I would need more than 100mm. In the telephoto range you rarely suffer from distortion unless you have a cheapy cheap lens. In fact at 100mm you should have very slight to none either with a good zoom or prime.

Can't you see i'm on a mission! My life depends on it!

Thanks though HIMUPNORTH I always appreciate your help :)
 
Can't you see i'm on a mission! My life depends on it!
Click to expand...

I think you need to get out more.
sport-smiley-009.gif
:D

I will want to see this wall!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top