Canon telezooms and extenders

[Macrotus]

Hi all

I have looked for Canon telezoom lenses for my Canon EOS 60D. I've thought about buying Canon EF 70-200mm IS USM lens, but I'm not sure which one is the best for me: f/4 or f/2.8. f/4 is much cheaper but aperture is narrower. I'd like to photograph birds, people, landscapes (I also have that 17-85mm /f4-5.6 IS USM, which is good for this), potraits (not always, but sometimes), leaves, trees, plants and so on. Much about nature. Here's some of my pictures (Sorry but it's slow). If someone have those lenses, could you show me sample photos from the same place (zoom 200mm) with those lenses so I could see the difference.

How much image quality suffers if I'd buy Canon EF 1.4x/2x Extender? It will drop the aperture, but it gives me more length. What's the difference between II and III extenders?

 

[Hardrock]

Well for a do it all lens your best bet is probably the new 70-200 f2.8IS II. It works will with extenders. I would go with the 2.8 version so that you can put a 2x tc and still be at f5.6 and not f8 with the f4 version. You may also want to look at the 100-400L it offers the same and maybe a little better image quality as the 70-200 with 2x tc. It would be a cheaper alternative but you would lose the 70-200 f2.8. Its hard to package a lens to do it all I use 4 different lens for birds , people , and landscapes. Hope this helps.

The III will produce better image quality than the II on the new updated Canon telephotos.

 

[Macrotus]

The 70-200 f2.8IS II costs so much that I haven't so much mony to spend for it. Canon says that all of the 70-200 lenses will work with extenders. So I believe that. I'm not sure about 100-400, it's great but it's only f4.5-5.6. Is it enought for nature photograph - even in winter when it's darker?

Which one would be better, 70-200mm f2.8 non-IS USM or 70-200mm f4 IS USM? It's almost 700 euros difference between 70-200mm f2.8 IS and non-IS versions, huh! I'd like to have long focal length and very wide aperture and it shouldn't cost much so it's very hard to find a good lens with those requirements.

 

[tyler_h]

For bird (and wildlife) photography you'll likely want something longer.

Both the 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L are high quality telephotos at reasonable prices. Between these it is extra reach versus and extra stop and IS.

You noted the change in aperture for the teleconverters:
1.4x you lose 1 stop
2x you lose 2 stops
The important part with this is a 70-200 f/4 with 2x tele becomes a 140-400 f/8, which means you will loose autofocus capabilities.

The other downside is slower AF when using teleconverters, which can be a significant factor in bird photography.



For portraits, if you don't shoot it a lot, just picking up a 50mm f/1.8 II (or I - optically very similar (same?) but better build).

 

[Macrotus]

Well, what would I say. If I buy longer lens, I don't buy teleconverter. Otherwise yes. Those 70-200mm seem nice but yes, they are a little bit too short for birds.

I would go with zoom lenses, not with fixed focal length lenses. 100-400 is very nice, but is that f4.5-5.6 enough?

Let's ask, what lens would you recommend for me with those requirements?

 

[Hardrock]

The 70-200 f2.8IS II costs so much that I haven't so much mony to spend for it. Canon says that all of the 70-200 lenses will work with extenders. So I believe that. I'm not sure about 100-400, it's great but it's only f4.5-5.6. Is it enought for nature photograph - even in winter when it's darker?

Usually you will be at f5.6 to f8 for birding anyway due to DOF. Like Tyler stated the longer the better for birding and the faster the lens the faster it will focus. Its a toss up between the 70-200 f2.8 and 70-200 f4IS. The f4 version is supposed to be sharper, I would get the 70-200 f4 IS due to the IS and a little sharper. You would still be able to use the 1.4tc and not lose auto focus. I owned the 70-200 f2.8 IS mkI and I did not like the sharpness with it on my 50D. At f2.8 and 200mm it was to soft for me. I found myself always using f4 and up. So I got rid of it for a different lens and eventually the MkII version. I think you really need to decide what you really want to do with it and go from there.


100-400L tons of people use and Love this lens the alternative to this lens is the 70-200 f2.8is MkII with 2xtc , 300 f4 ,400 f5.6, 300 f2.8 ,400 f2.8 ,500 f4 and 600 f4 which are all very expensive except for the f4 and f5.6 lens.

 

[tyler_h]

You will get f/4 and 280mm with the 70-200mm f/2.8.

You don't really get longer and faster without going for a prime (and the f/2.8's are all very expensive and heavy).

f/4.5-5.6 should be fine for daylight. You'll be bumping the ISO a fair bit in worse lighting conditions, but if you want the flexibility of a zoom its a trade-off you have to make.

I don't know particularly for the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS but as it normally goes the L's (the longer ones at least) are sharp from wide open which is useful (noted as a big positive of the 400mm f5.6L). Being a zoom it wont be as sharp (mainly corners). There are a few comparison reviews out there for the 400mm focal length.

 

[Derrel]

It's almost impossible to tell you if f/4~5.6 is "fast enough" for birds....where do you shoot your photos at??? When???

If you're in Florida, or the Texas or Louisiana Gulf Coast in the summer during the bright season, the light is sooooooooo bright that f/5.6 can pull 1/3000 to 1/4000 second. If you're shooting bald eagles in Washington state on the Skagit River during the winter, f/5.6 is a pathetically slow aperture.

 

[JimCoventry]

The f2.8 70-200 IS is without a doubt the most versatile long lens available, of course next to my 24-70 Canon f2.8. Nikon and others try to emulate it unsuccessfully. I use it extensively and I use the Canon 2X multiplier. It is great in almost every use. Now I must say when I put on the multiplier I like to use a tripod. However, I use it at weddings for the "putting the rings on ceremony" I can fill the viewfinder with the pair of hands and still be in the 3rd pew. It is tack sharp etc. I use it on all my portrait work. See my web site. Peoria, IL Premier Photographer

 

[Overread]

Here is my take on the situation:

1) IF you want a single lens to do your landscape, portraits, general and wildlife then, in my opinion you've two options:
a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 + 2*teleconverter - you've already expressed that this is a too costly approach for yourself, but it is the general all round best choice to cover all the needs you want in a single lens and to a good level of image quality.

b 70-200mm f2.8 IS L original +2*TC - cheaper yes, but not as good. The 70-200mm range is very good and is still pro standard even with the new M2 on the market. So landscape/general/portraits will be fine. With the 2*TC though it will soften more noticeably. If wildlife isn't a big thing for you you can get away with this combo - but if you're more keen chances are you won't like it (myself I had this combo and used the 2*TC about four times - it just wasn't good enough).

2) Split your choice and focus dominantly down one direction first. This could be portraits (at which point the 70-200mm f4 or f2.8 version will do you very well) or it could be wildlife (a bit more costly, but you've the 300mm f4 IS L +1.4TC - 400mm f5.6 L and the 100-400mm f4-5.6 IS L to choose from).


You express concern that f5.6 at the 400mm end might not be enough, well for the price point you are looking at it will, sadly, have to be. Good quality wide aperture lenses cost a lot and there is just no way of getting around that fact. However the f5.6 is generally enough for most and many use the above listed lenses to produce some fantastic wildlife work. In addition you can use other items to improve the lighting - namely a flash unit (speedlite design flash) combined with a better beamer/flash extender to boost the range of the flash light -- that lets you push out more light from the camera to help with the local exposure on the wildlife.

 

[Macrotus]

Thanks for replies.

It will not be my primary lens, and it doesn't need to be a professional lens which can be used for photograph bugs from kilometers away.

1) Potraits: I ment that I could take nice pictures of people with low DOF because of the long focal length. Tested with 17-85, and it works.
2) Wildlife: The primary purpose of this lens isn't to photograph small things in dark forests.

I'm beginner with photograph, but I'd like to have good lens while starting photographing.

So, are those 70-200 f4 IS and 100-400 f4.5-5.6 my options if I don't want to use ~2000€ for 70-200 f2.8 IS + 2xTC?

 

[tyler_h]

As you can pose portraits you have control over the situation and framing shouldn't be an issue.
50mm f/1.8 for super cheap, or 85mm f/1.8 for something a little longer if you'd prefer.

That plus the 100-400 would be my suggestion considering your desire for a zoom.
The 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM is another option to consider that is a bit of a compromise focal length. You'll get a bit wider for some portaits (although not particularily shallow DoF) while still having reasonable reach.

EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS « Canon Rumors
gives some comments on this versus the 100-400 ~3/4 of the way through. Might be good to have a read of.

 

[Macrotus]

Wow, that 70-300 looks very nice! The price is not too bad, 1050 euros or 1500 us$ so it's cheaper than 100-400 but more expensive than 70-200 f4.

But is that f5.6 too low? In that article he says no, but I'm not quite sure about that. If I'll use it in daylight, it's ok but when it's darker...? He also said that with IS and 1/50 shutter speed it makes great photos, so I think that's great!

Well, what about video? My 60D can capture 1080p video with 25fps. I don't take a lot of videos, but if there's a situation that needs video, does it work?

 

[tyler_h]

Video at 300mm would be something different. 25fps; need a faster shutter than 1/25 so tripod or an exceptionally steady hand

1/50 with IS; remember that it's only useful for static subjects. On the other hand 1/200 is normally good for portraits/slow movement so having IS at 300 is useful even if 4 stops isn't always useful.

To get an idea for f/5.6; take your 17-85 out at 85 and go Manual at f/5.6, 1/300 and use Auto ISO to see how it would go. Probably the easiest way to get a feel for lighting.

 

[Macrotus]

Ok!

I tested that thing. It makes pretty good images at daylight and in shadows. I didn't get 1/300, there was only 1/250 and 1/320 so I used 320.

Those who have 70-300, what do you think? Is it worth of that 1000€ (1500 usd) price? If you have photos with that, I'd be pleased for seeing those.