Canon telephoto zooms and IS

  • Thread starter Mike Hollingshead
  • Start date

Mike Hollingshead

Well there seems to be a lot of camera talk right now, and it is probably what got me looking for a good telephoto zoom lens. Anyone use the IS stuff much, and if so, is there any tendancy for there to be problems with the system?

I can't decide what to do. I guess a person should first decide on the focal length they want and I've narrowed it down to up to 200mm being needed. 70-200 seems to be a very solid/safe bet. 100-400 hasn't looked so hot.

Something interesting is the new Canon 70-200 mm F/4.0 L IS. They say they achieved a 4 stop increase in steadiness(4 stops!.....if you hand held something at 1/250th you could do the same thing at 1/15th). Reading back on the older 70-200 mm F/2.8 L IS it says 2 to up to 3 stops. It seems as far as steadiness the F4 would be as good or better. The difference in price is $1700 for the F2.8 and $1050 for the F4.0. So I think I've decided, then I visit Ryan McGinnis' blog today. http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/ Sigh. Now I wonder if I'd need 2.8. I guess I know Ryan's thoughts on this lol.

Then if that wasn't enough, they have an even cheaper 70-200 L that is F4 without IS....for only $533 after a mail in rebate. I guess this is partly why I'm bothering to post this here. If you are wanting a better solution than the cheap zooms out there, but not wanting to spend $1700....this lens might be a very good option. It's almost like the 17-40L instead of the 16-35L. $533 is pretty darn cheap for a good L telephoto zoom. I was thinking, the only zoom I've used is my sister's cheap kodak, 80-210. Its widest aperture is 5.6. It hasn't felt that restricting to me, just knowing if the light is lower I'll probably have to use a tripod. The only thing bad is the quality sucks. The 70-200 L F4 would be great quality and a bit faster. It almost seems like that is all a person would really need.

I guess like on Ryan's blog, IS isn't going to slow something's motion. But is 4.0 to 2.8 worth $600+? Then one has the whole IS thing in a bit brighter, yet still dim situations. Is IS then worth $1050 for the F4 instead of $533 for F4 without it? I hate this. Then one tosses in the fact they are already spending a chunk of change, they surely don't want to spend it and feel they stopped short of where they should have. I guess if there are tendacies to have issues with the IS system that would make the choice very easy for me. Replacing the hunk of junk kodak 5.6 with the canon 70-200L F4 for only $533 seems like the safest bet. Anyone use any of these?
 
Hi! Well, here's the thing. If you NEED 2.8, then get the 2.8IS. If you don't, then the f/4L IS is the hands-down winner. Why? Because the 70-200 f/4L IS lens is perhaps the best telephoto lens that Canon (or possibly anyone) has ever produced. The resolution tests on this lens places it in a class that no zoom lens has ever been in before:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4is/index.htm

Seriously, I halfway considered sending back by 2.8IS lens and getting this instead. However, occasionally I need the 2.8, so it's worth it to take the hit in image quality wide open.

The two lenses perform similarly at f/4, though the f4 IS is better:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=103&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2

You won't be dissapointed if you get a 70-200 2.8L IS -- but you're paying a real hefty premium if you don't plan on using it in low light situations or in situations where a very shallow DOF is required. The 70-200 2.8 IS is also VERY VERY HEAVY for people who aren't used to using big telephoto lenses. :) (It's also VERY VERY LIGHT for people who've ever tried handholding a 300 f/2.8 IS) The 70-200 f/4 IS lens is quite light -- light enough where it doesn't really need a tripod collar (which it doesn't come with.) However, you won't be dissapointed, either, if you get the 70-200 f/4IS... you will likely be blown away. I WOULD, however, reccomend getting an IS version, which ever one you get. It totally opens up new avenues for photography. I mean, I can handhold my 70-200 at 200 mm at 1/30th of a second. 1/30th!

So basically, it depends what you want to shoot. For wildlife, 200mm isn't usually long enough. For photojournalism, the 100-400 is too slow. Either of the 70-200 lenses are much more versitile than the 100-400 (every photojournalist owns one), but then if you need to be shooting pictures of birds 100 feet away, you'll need more reach than the 70-200. For tornadoes... well, even 200mm is often too long! :)

Another option if you want high quality for a low price is the 200mm 2.8L prime. It's light, fast, and cheap. No IS, though, and, of course, no zooming, so it's less versitile. Primes perform better than zooms optically, so you won't have to worry about your picture quality suffering.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I used to own the 200 f/2.8 prime. Excellent lens. I bought it used and actually made $$$ on it when I sold it (I ended up picking up the 70-200mm f/2.8 NON-IS for $900 barely used).

I'd say the prime and zoom are nearly identical. The 70-200 series is so sharp to start with I'm not sure I would buy based off the increased rez. At the time, I wanted low light performance but didn't have the $$ for the IS version so that's why I chose the 2.8 non IS. It honestly makes the 17-40 seem like a POS in my opinion. Other than some decrease in corner sharpness at f/2.8, the lens is remarkable. If I got to choose now, the 70-200 f/4 IS sounds like a great choice. What's the thread diameter? I can share filters between my 70-200 2.8 and 17-40.

What I really want to see is a new 400mm f/5.6 IS. That would be my ideal next purchase.

Aaron
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW, if you do buy the 2.8 version, you get a rebate right now via Canon. (Rebate form here:

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/00/00/00/50/52/85/50528557._V47458123_.pdf
)

You also will get a "professional discount" at B&H if you do the following:

Go to bhphotovideo.com.
In the site's search box, enter the following (without the quotes): "*psjan*".

You will be presented with a list of items that can be purchased at a discounted price.

They usually give these codes out at tradeshows and stuff, but somehow it's ended up on the internet. :)
 
Psjan doesn't work neither does psnov now. They give you some message about entering in the full code. But I figured a way around it, just add a 0 (zero) to the end of psnov. It doesn't matter though, because BH just jacked up their prices again.
 
Dick McGowan said:
Psjan doesn't work neither does psnov now. They give you some message about entering in the full code. But I figured a way around it, just add a 0 (zero) to the end of psnov. It doesn't matter though, because BH just jacked up their prices again.
Click to expand...

It works, you just have to put the asterisks around the word. Don't type "psjan", type "*psjan*". :) For example, with this code, the 70-200 2.8IS is only 1,599.95, instead of 1,699.95 without the code. That's before the $50 rebate, too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those 'all-around' lenses are known to have bad quality compared to getting a lens that it a true telephoto and a true wide angle lens. Although this is a Canon and I'm sure it would be decent, but not as good as getting the true telephoto.

To answer the originial question that came to mind, if you are really looking into saving some bucks here and there, think of how steady you are with your hand or how often you use a tripod. Do you really need IS or could you live without it and save quite a bundle??

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM - $1650
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L USM - $1100
Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS USM - $1050
Canon 70-200 f/4 L USM - $600
 
I live in the "other world" (Nikon)... and I have the 80-400mm VR (which is Nikon's "IS"). This is a f/4.5-5.6 lens and the sole purpose of getting this lens a year ago was to get my feet wet in telephoto. Since then, I have fallen in love with bird photography, and I am in the process of saving for the 'holy grail' of bird photography lenses-- the 600mm f/4. These wide focal length ranges can be good lenses... some photographers have had amazing results with the 50-500mm Sigma "Bigma". The upshot is, for handheld lenses in the 200-300mm range, you will suffer from speed, or lack thereof... regarding aperture. My 400mm zoom lens which is f/5.6 at that length really sucks in low light... I mean bad. No matter how good your post processing techniques are with ISO > 1000... it certainly won't beat a faster lens. In storm photography, faster is better, since a large percentage of photos are shot in low light ... and with scenes changing fast, and always on the move (I know we'd all love 10mph moving storms, but that isn't always the case)... the times to setup the tripod and just sit there and admire the storm can be few and far between.. Go fast! Auto-focus also suffers from slower apertures as well. That said... I found an interesting use for 400mm of length on the 10/26 storm chase zeroing in on debris as a weak tornado crossed the road in front of me about 3/4 mile away... So, there is a place for 300-400mm range, but it's rare... usually for up close tornado action.
 
Ryan McGinnis said:
From what I understand, the image quality of that isn't in the same league as the 70-200's, and 5.6 is slllllooowwwww. There are cheaper, better options, unless you absoloutely have to have it all in one lens.
Click to expand...

True something like this one would only give me the benefit of a better glass, as I already have a 5.6 in the cheap 75-300mm.
I like action photo's , usually sports or bird's in flight.

206932817_6af799b083_m.jpg


What I find most of the time is, if it's cloudy I'm not going to get as good of shots vs's a sunny day.

Even under stadium lights at f/5 and a 1600 iso the lens couldn't give me what I needed to stop the action.
156050671_cd95928c6a.jpg



So in reality I shouldn't be looking at anything if it's not going to help in low light situations .

I'll probably push the button on the Canon 70-200 2.8 this weekend, unless I decide to get 2 dedicated sizes instead:confused:
 
I got a canon EOS XT . After looking up the ratings on several forums and from you all, I bought a tamron 28-200mm . It works well and I got a real good price on it on EBAY. It had better reviews then the Canon 70-200mm. I use Tamrons with my minolta SRT 101 and then 201 and so Tamrons are something I don't shy away from.
 
After looking over reports from you all, considering prices, other popular phtotography and other forum and other reviews I decided to ditch and thoughts of sigma lens. The canons looked good but the reviews for the tamron 28-200mm was pretty good. I got it for little over $110 on ebay in great shape and used in for on the lunar eclipse a few weeks ago. I am tryin to get used to the autofocus, XT that I bought .
Thanks for your advice, information, details and emails. I really appreciate it.
Let the storms begin.
:)
May you all have a better storm season and stormchasing then mine in 2006 (which really really sucked!!!).

Keep posting your telephoto ideas and results from 2007 season as you use your telephoto and results.
 
Tamron 28-200mm has better reviews than the canon 70-200? Which canon 70-200? There are at least 4 versions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dan Robinson
Using Fix-a-Flat and similar products
Replies
6
Views
334
JamesCaruso
JamesCaruso
Budget Video Camera For the 2023 Storm Chasing Season
Replies
11
Views
2K
Roberto Gaianigo
Roberto Gaianigo
Randy Jennings
2024-03-14 EVENT: TX/OK/AR/MO/IL
Replies
11
Views
801
Randy Jennings
Randy Jennings
gdlewen
Where is the Secondary Cold Front of January 19, 2024?
Replies
2
Views
473
gdlewen
gdlewen
James K
Looking for a new camcorder (Lower end)
Replies
5
Views
1K
James K
James K
Back
Top