So I would like to buy an L lense but i'm not sure which one to pick....

[Mareshow]

I'm stuck between getting a Prime lens or getting a tele photo but i'm not sure which would be better for my purposes. I primarily use it for photography why snowmobiling high up in the canadian alpine, as well as in heavily forested areas(there is no people or noise out here ) so i know the pros and cons of both but i'm stuck between the two.

So pros of a Prime:

Image quality and detail (and i LOVE image quality)

Low Light performance (this doesnt really matter because 90% of the pictures i take are in extremely high light situations) the snow on the mountains is like flash all the time haha

Cons of a Prime:

No Zoom, I dont use much zoom and mobility is easy with a sled or quad but would i miss it?

More expensive, it seems the nice prime lenses are very pricey...

and on the other hand:

Pros of a Telephoto (zoom) lens:

Zoom! i can just stand there and let the lens do the work

Price, it seems these are cheaper for some reason

Cons of a Zoom lens:

Image quality, yeah i know they are all L series lenses the quality is Great on all of them but the primes are just that much better

Weight, Although this is about the only thing in my backpack, they can be quite heavy so... back pain sucks!


So i'm on the fence I currently have a 15x85mm f 3.5-5.6 IS USM and a 60mm Macro f2.8 which for what i've been doing currently are great but I want to expand.

something like a 100-400mm would be awesome because i would mostly use it at 100mm but the zoom capacity would be extremely helpful. a 200mm prime would also be awesome because i would use it almost all the time up on the mountain. and a 70-200 f4 would be great because i dont really need the f2.8 because its mostly very high lighting situations

but i dont have enough experience to make and 100% positive educated decision. so a little help?
[h=2][/h]

 

[ChristianGrattan]

What about the canon 70-300? This lens does not get a lot of interest because the aperture is not fixed and it is not a very fast lens. However it won't really matter that much with all the snow. The longer focal lengths will give you some great out of focus backgrounds.

 

[Mareshow]

What about the canon 70-300? This lens does not get a lot of interest because the aperture is not fixed and it is not a very fast lens. However it won't really matter that much with all the snow. The longer focal lengths will give you some great out of focus backgrounds.

I also considered that lense but i'm not sure if i'd want the extra range over a 70-200mm. i would like to try both though

 

[Overread]

Sounds like you really are aiming for one of the 70-200mm lenses - they are very popular as a focal length range cover and many photographers make use of them. If you feel you don't want the bulk and don't need the f2.8 aperture (remember you can use that creatively as well as for pure light gathering) then the f4 versions are certainly great choices (and its oft remarked that the 70-200mm f4 IS is a tad sharper than the original 70-200mm f2.8 IS so the f4 are no slouches).

If you find you need a little more range you can even use a 1.4TC on either the f4 or the f2.8 versions to get you a bit more reach for when you need it, with minimal loss of optical quality (there will be some, but in real world shooting and with processing you won't notice it).


The f2.8 do give a little more range in creative options, but are heavier and bigger. Though the weight and size is of a kind that most are able to use them handheld without much trouble; though if you're biking weight and packing size might be big limitations. One thing to consider (though its not a cheap option) is the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII which can be used with a 2*TC and gives you a 140-400mm which is pretty much on par with the 100-400mm. The original f2.8 versions are not as good with this and the MII is leaps and bounds ahead of them in this regard (the MII is a step up in the 70-200mm range, not quite night and day but certainly enough to start giving the primes a run for their money).


If you want to go prime there is a good 200mm L on the market as well as the very popular 135mm f2 L to consider. Both are great choices if you want a fast prime lens.

 

[o hey tyler]

So pros of a Prime:

Image quality and detail (and i LOVE image quality)

Low Light performance (this doesnt really matter because 90% of the pictures i take are in extremely high light situations) the snow on the mountains is like flash all the time haha

Cons of a Prime:

No Zoom, I dont use much zoom and mobility is easy with a sled or quad but would i miss it?

More expensive, it seems the nice prime lenses are very pricey...

[h=2][/h]

How is: Amazon.com: Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo or Amazon.com: Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Electronics

More expensive than...

Amazon.com: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Electronics

???

 

[Mareshow]

Sounds like you really are aiming for one of the 70-200mm lenses - they are very popular as a focal length range cover and many photographers make use of them. If you feel you don't want the bulk and don't need the f2.8 aperture (remember you can use that creatively as well as for pure light gathering) then the f4 versions are certainly great choices (and its oft remarked that the 70-200mm f4 IS is a tad sharper than the original 70-200mm f2.8 IS so the f4 are no slouches).

If you find you need a little more range you can even use a 1.4TC on either the f4 or the f2.8 versions to get you a bit more reach for when you need it, with minimal loss of optical quality (there will be some, but in real world shooting and with processing you won't notice it).


The f2.8 do give a little more range in creative options, but are heavier and bigger. Though the weight and size is of a kind that most are able to use them handheld without much trouble; though if you're biking weight and packing size might be big limitations. One thing to consider (though its not a cheap option) is the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII which can be used with a 2*TC and gives you a 140-400mm which is pretty much on par with the 100-400mm. The original f2.8 versions are not as good with this and the MII is leaps and bounds ahead of them in this regard (the MII is a step up in the 70-200mm range, not quite night and day but certainly enough to start giving the primes a run for their money).


If you want to go prime there is a good 200mm L on the market as well as the very popular 135mm f2 L to consider. Both are great choices if you want a fast prime lens.

Hmmm I have given some thought to the F2.8 but i'd perfer to stay around the $1500 mark, thoughts on the 100-400mm? i havent really seen anyone who love loves it or hate hates it. Fast focusing is somewhat important, especially with some of the shots i do, but i'm not sure what the minimum would be.

and o hey tyler, i was comparing to the 300mm and 400mm primes which are VERY pricey

 

[mjhoward]

How is: Amazon.com: Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo or Amazon.com: Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Electronics

More expensive than...

Amazon.com: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Electronics

???

and o hey tyler, i was comparing to the 300mm and 400mm primes which are VERY pricey

Orange is better than Apple.

 

[jaomul]

Seems like you want an L lens more out of reputation than necessity. If your happy with your 15-85 why not opt for an intermediately priced zoom that fits your needs rather than an L which of course are excellent but maybe not always necessary. Lots of light means you dont need f2.8. Of course f2.8 is nice and you can't have your equipment "to good".

The 100-400 canon is very flexible and from the few uses I have had it does focus fast.

For the same money you could buy a 70-300 IS/OS/VC type lens and still have change for nice prime out of $1500, a win win situation

 

[sovietdoc]

just get a 70-200 f/4L

 

[o hey tyler]

Orange is better than Apple.

I like grape... Should I dump all my gear and invest in Leica?

 

[Mareshow]

Well after using all the prospect lenses today I picked the 300mm f4.0 prime lens. I love it, Now i need to get another shorter prime lense but this one is beyond all my expectations, the picture quality is above and beyond anything i've used before. Low light performance is outstanding. although it may not be exactly what i need, it will more that fit the bill . thanks for the input

 

[Dao]

Orange is better than Apple.

I like grape... Should I dump all my gear and invest in Leica?

Yes, just let me know where you dump them.

 

[Mareshow]

OK after using the 300mm f4 IS and the 70-200mm f4 non IS on the weekend, I'm stuck in the middle. I did notice a difference in image quality between the two (its not much but its there) and i'm still battling between Prime and Zoom. I'm going to return the 300mm because although its a great lens, its too long for my purposes. The 70-200mm f4 non IS was nice but i think I want to go the f2.8 of that lens.

or do i say screw you to both those lenses and get a 85mm f1.8 and a 135mm f2.0? also about those lenses, for sports and action photography am i going to miss the IS?

 

[Tony S]

Really now, get on with it and get the 70-200 2.8 IS II. Top of it's class and excellent sharpness from it, it will be really difficult to distinguish the sharpness from a prime if you can at all. If you went with the 85 or the 135 you "will" miss that little bit more reach you get with the 200 for action shooting. Like others have said, it works great with tele-extenders for even more reach with minimal image quality loss. For sports and action photography you won't miss the IS, but it's definitely something worthwhile for other things you may be shooting while out on a sled. Also, take note that it's built like a tank and will handle being out in almost any type of weather conditions without needing a cover short of dunking it in a stream.

It's one lens that you won't regret spending the $$ on.

Also, you mentioned the 100-400.... forget about it, the image quality is not comparable to either the original or the new 70-200. It's a slower lens and it also has the problem of being a push pull zoom that has a tendancy to occasionally suck in some dust or moisture. I have one, but it's uses for me are limited even shooting sports and wildlife.

 

[TheBiles]

OK after using the 300mm f4 IS and the 70-200mm f4 non IS on the weekend, I'm stuck in the middle. I did notice a difference in image quality between the two (its not much but its there) and i'm still battling between Prime and Zoom. I'm going to return the 300mm because although its a great lens, its too long for my purposes. The 70-200mm f4 non IS was nice but i think I want to go the f2.8 of that lens.

or do i say screw you to both those lenses and get a 85mm f1.8 and a 135mm f2.0? also about those lenses, for sports and action photography am i going to miss the IS?

IS does not stop motion, so it is irrelevant with action photography.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201