Telephoto lenses for Canon.. fight!

Buszaj · Jun 17, 2008

asfixiate said:
Without Flash how good is the 70-200 f/4L in a low lit situation?

with my 50mm/f 1.8 i was able to take pictures in nocturnal exhibit at zoo without flash. This lense can do that?

No. And this lens is the closest out of the three to getting low light shots. I doubt 2.8 will even get those zoo shots. But you can get good handheld shots in a theatre/auditorium with this lens, just bump the ISO to 800.

Dao · Jun 17, 2008

I believe the 70-200mm f4L is not the replacement of the 50mm f1.8. But I think if I am going to take an outdoor Portrait shot, I may choose the 70-200mm F4L over the 50mm F1.8. If I going to take a photo of my daughter running around in a outdoor playground, I may use the 70-200mm F4L because of the USM. I did use my 50mm F1.8, but a lot of time, it end up the AF is not fast enough. For the same token, taking a photos of a bird flying ... I think 70-200mm F4L is more capable.

Don't get me wrong. Right now, I still love my 50mm F1.8

asfixiate · Jun 17, 2008

I personally would recommend 85 f/1.8 100 f/2.0 and of course 50mm f/1.8. I used it the entire Philadelphia Zoo and was able to zoom in on far away shots with very decent results.

all those L lenses are great but IS is probably goign to be missed with f/4.

There's a guy that is member of this forum who only takes zoo shots. his website is zoopictures.net or something. When i think of his name he can probably give you some additional advice.

Buszaj · Jun 17, 2008

asfixiate said:
There's a guy that is member of this forum who only takes zoo shots. his website is zoopictures.net or something. When i think of his name he can probably give you some additional advice.

Sabbath999

For zoo shots, I think that the 300mm would give you extra reach for someshots, for most of them you may not need the 300mm. And like asfixiate said, even 100mm suffices. Its just that the 70-200 has such good quality for the dollar, you can get the 300mm shot with okay quality, but you can get a very sharp shot with the 200mm, crop it, and get a better result in the end. Not that the 70-300 is completely crap though.

MDesigner · Jun 17, 2008

Well, I'm down to either the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM. The former has the advantage of being a good value at a great price. The IQ looks great for the price!

I'm torn..

Buszaj · Jun 17, 2008

Yes, but the latter is WHITE, and is an L lens! :lol:

Kidding. Pick which ever one you think will suit your needs the best.

MDesigner · Jun 17, 2008

I could buy the 70-200 and maybe later sell it to upgrade to the version that has IS. Hmm..see, I just think the IS will come in handy, but I could be wrong.

Buszaj · Jun 17, 2008

Well, I think the handiness of the IS depends on when/what you're going to be shooting. Please describe. Is it only zoo, low light,etc.?

asfixiate · Jun 17, 2008

My recommendations are different than your decision you want to make. If its between Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM. I'd go 70-200 in a heartbeat if those are your only choices. I've heard the 55-250 lense is average at best.

Don't forget its not like you're only buying a zoo lens. Hopefully you're considering all types of photography to make your decision. The 70-200mm f/4 is great for outdoor sports, portraits, etc.

I like Prime lenses because I don't mind switching.

Buszaj · Jun 17, 2008

sglshotkw · Jun 17, 2008

I have used the 70-200 f2.8 and it is a fantastic lense, everything I have read about the 70-200 f4 lense is extremely positive. I think would go with the 70-200 f4 because in the long run if you do upgrade the L lense hold there value

and you can usa a monopod or tripod if your worried about not having IS.
One more plus is if your shooting in bright light you can add the 1.4 extender and reach out farther

Good Luck with your choice

MDesigner · Jun 17, 2008

OK.. now I'm leaning towards the 70-200 f/4L.

Just tell me it includes a lens hood...

Mav · Jun 17, 2008

asfixiate said:
My recommendations are different than your decision you want to make. If its between Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM. I'd go 70-200 in a heartbeat if those are your only choices. I've heard the 55-250 lense is average at best.

The 55-250 samples posted above look anything but average to me. Particularly the face shot of the gorilla looks outstanding. For landscape photos, I think this EF-S 50-250 IS or the 70-300 IS would be a better choice than the 70-200 f/4L non-IS. IS is far more important for landscape photos than an additional stop of speed. Depends on what you're shooting though. The 70-200 f/4L non-IS is a great starter lens for sports photography where IS doesn't really matter.

Mystwalker · Jun 17, 2008

MDesigner said:
Well, I'm down to either the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM. The former has the advantage of being a good value at a great price. The IQ looks great for the price!

I'm torn..

I've never used a 55-250, but can tell you that you can't go wrong with an "L". I think you will be paying $500 for 50mm less, no IS, but faster lens - and it has "L" built.

Worst case scenario, you do not like it, you can resell it - "L"s have much better resell value.

Dao · Jun 17, 2008

Mystwalker said:
Worst case scenario, you do not like it, you can resell it - "L"s have much better resell value.

I agree. Find a good used 70-200mm F4L, buy it for $x. If I do not like it, most likely I can sell it back for $x ... or a little less than $x.

Also, I really do not know if the 70-200mm F4L come with a hood or not. But I am certain that it does not come with the tripod mount. Maybe it is because the lens is a lot lighter than the IS or F2.8 IS version. Or, Canon just want to make few bucks more.