Canon telezooms and extenders

[tyler_h]

I didn't get 1/300, there was only 1/250 and 1/320 so I used 320.

Yeah, 1/320 is the one lol.

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.

Have a look at Flickr; you can search for images there to give you some idea.

 

[table1349]

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?

Knowing where you are from could be helpful. If you have a good photography shop in your area I would suggest that you go and try a 70-200 and then add the 1.4TC and try it again. If they have a 300mm/400mm/500mm in stock give them a try as well. If you are not in an area with a good photo shop then consider renting the 70-200 and 1.4 tc and maybe a 300 prime and 2X tc and see which you like better. TC's work better on quality primes than they do on zooms. The 1.4 will give better results on a zoom than the 2X. The only time I us my Canon 2X tc is on my 300mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8. The image quality with that tc on those lenses is quite acceptable.

 

[Macrotus]

I searched images from Flickr. There was some amazing photos - even when taken in dark. I know that the 70-300 is amazing lens, but I'm trying to resolve is it good for me.

I live in Finland (about 6000 kilometers away from the USA as the crow flies along, northen Europe), and the summer is probably the only season when it's sunny and bright. The summer is very short, about 2-3 months it's sunny and warm. About half of the year is very dark.

The lens would be used mainly in summer, and at other times during bright daylight hours. Here's not polar nights, but in the mornings, evenings and at night it's still very dark.

It would be good to have a chance to take photos with this lens even when it's dark: of cource I'd use tripod, IS and I would photograph static objects.

 

[tyler_h]

IS + tripod doesn't usually work I believe, but for static its irrelevant once on a tripod anyway.

Finland should have a fair amount of snow a lot of the year. Snow reflects a lot of light so can keep conditions bright in average light conditions. Not going to work for the weeks of night.

One stop; you'll need the 300 f/4L so not a huge help... and next comes the 300 f/2.8L and I think that might be a little out of your budget lol. It's exceptionally difficult to have a long tele you can handhold in adverse light...

 

[Macrotus]

Hi again

I just came back from Amsterdam, so I haven't thought the lens. The weather was rainy, but I got amazing photos with 85mm f5.6 and smaller apertures. The shutter speed was approximately 1/30-1/100 while photographing outside. I used the IS all the time and it made photographing easy even at shutter speed of 1/20! Maybe there's a little bit blur in some places, but I didn't separate it with my eyes.

Are those L-lenses well protected against the weather, so I can photograph in heavy rain? What about the size of the outer lens, it's only 67mm like my 17-85mm lens. 70-200 has 77mm outer lens so does it bring some difference to image quality and sharpness?

I'd be glad to hear the best and the worst things about this lens. It's a lot of money to spend, so I don't want to waste it for trash.

 

[tyler_h]

77mm diameter filters; combined with 200 @ 2.8
200 @ 2.8 requires 71.42mm
As most lenses have the aperture blades positioned further back in the lens a larger front element is needed, otherwise vignetting will be significant.

As for weathersealing it varies, and what is listed as weathersealed can vary is how water/dust proof they are.
70-200 f/2.8 IS - Sealed
70-200 f/2.8 - Not
70-200 f/4 IS - Sealed
70-200 f/4 - Not
70-300 f/4-5.6L IS - Sealed
100-400 f/4-5.6L IS - Not

And the sealing will mainly only be useful if your body etc are weathersealed as well. That being said I've taken 550D + Kit Lens out at night in the rain and had no worries; just make sure I dry it thoroughly when I return and don't change lenses in the field.

 

[Macrotus]

Good. I'm sure that my 60D is weathersealed, so I don't worry about it.

I think I go to the local camera shop and ask if I can try 70-300 and 70-200 f4 lenses and I also ask what they think about them.

You can still suggest me some lenses, and tell me what's good and what's not.

 

[tyler_h]

Well, out of the above listed any in the 70-200 line up I'd get depending on application and available funds.
I wouldn't get the 100-400 as I don't like the zoom method (push-pull), so for a zoom in that sort of range I'd rather the 70-300L.
Within those I'd rather the 70-200 options if I wanted weathersealing as they have fixed external dimensions. That is another advantage of the 300 and 400 primes, although with the 400 f/5.6 lacks IS.

If money was no a concern I'd be looking at the 400 f/4 DO - extra stop and slight light (and compact).

When you say 70-200 f/4, do you mean IS or not? because f/4 IS and f/2.8 have similar pricings and the 2.8 is naturally better for some applications.

 

[Macrotus]

Ok!

I ment 70-200 f/4 IS, I forgot to put the IS in there.

Well, 70-300L looks very nice, and the price is about 1000€. It's a lot and I need to think about it. Thanks for replies!