Telephoto advice

[afterburn]

When one of my collegues is going back to the US, he will need to go shopping for me again. However, I wonder what to do...

1) 70-200/f4 L IS v 70-200/f2.8 L IS

I know the measurable differences between the two: the f4 is a little sharper, and has less CA, the f2.8 has a little less vignetting and little less distortion. Probably mostly irrelevant in real world shooting.

However, what is the difference (if any) in color rendition and contrast?


2) I am looking for reach, and since I already have up to 105mm covered, would getting a prime like ie the 300/f4 L IS be a smart move? Or is the flexibility of a zoom just better?

The 100-400 is not an option for me, as push/pull zooms and me don't go together very well.

I do not plan to get much more than a single telephoto lens, and possibly a 1.4 extender.

I am not too charmed about non-Canon lenses, like Sigma as 1) I want IS since I mostly shoot handheld, en 2) (in the case of Sigma) I don't like the yellowish cast these lenses typically display.

Targetted use: Motorcycle racing, wildlife (think zoo), landscape, occasional bird and in case of a 70-200, indoor portraiture (don't seem me doing that with a 300mm prime).

So what I need is:
- Fast AF
- Range
- Reasonably fast aperture

Lens will be use on both the 5D and 30D.

I feel this pretty much point in the direction of the 70-200/f2.8 and a 1.4TC, which would give me a range of up to 200-448mm, depending on the camera and use of TC, while the f2.8 allows for available light indoor photography too.

But, on the other hand, I may be totally focussing on this lens and missing completely valid alternative.

Oh yeah, max budget is about $1500.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by afterburn

When one of my collegues is going back to the US, he will need to go shopping for me again. However, I wonder what to do...

1) 70-200/f4 L IS v 70-200/f2.8 L IS

I know the measurable differences between the two

...are you also aware about the physical differences: the F4IS is relative small (thin) and light, the F2.8IS is relative big (thick) and heavy...

However, what is the difference (if any) in color rendition and contrast?

IMO neglect able in their comparable aperture range (F4-F22 (32?)), the F2.8IS is contrastier and has better colors below F4

2) I am looking for reach, and since I already have up to 105mm covered, would getting a prime like ie the 300/f4 L IS be a smart move? Or is the flexibility of a zoom just better?

again IMO: the zoom-flexibility wins (from pure image quality: L primes are sharper, contrastier, render colors nicer, than their zoom L counterparts, all be by a fraction in some cases...

The 100-400 is not an option for me, as push/pull zooms and me don't go together very well.

Pity, is a nice lens and would nicely complement your 17-40F4L/F24-105F4L IS kit , and would save you an expensive 1.4x converter

I do not plan to get much more than a single telephoto lens, and possibly a 1.4 extender.

Targeted use: Motorcycle racing, wildlife (think zoo), landscape, occasional bird and in case of a 70-200, indoor portraiture (don't seem me doing that with a 300mm prime).

So what I need is:
- Fast AF
- Range
- Reasonably fast aperture

Lens will be use on both the 5D and 30D.

I feel this pretty much point in the direction of the 70-200/f2.8 and a 1.4TC, which would give me a range of up to 200-448mm, depending on the camera and use of TC, while the f2.8 allows for available light indoor photography too.

Good analysis: F4IS for lightweight, F2.8Is for maximum usability giving you one stop more options...

But, on the other hand, I may be totally focusing on this lens and missing completely valid alternative.

...not to my knowledge...

...and a s always, IMO and just *my* €0.02 worth...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[golfer]

The 2.8 may be the lense you are after. Frankly I've heard very good things about the F4. The 2.8 is larger and heavier than the 4 but it is not so large you can not carry it well.
The advantage goes to the 2.8 in lower light and indoors. If you could only have one, I suggest the 2.8. It is the best for all you have outlined.

[afterburn]

Thanks guys.

But I can't help but wonder if there isn't too much overlap between the lenses I already have. I mean, between the 5D and 30D, the combo 17-40 and 24-105 cover anything between 17mm and 168mm.

On the other hand, the 70-200 can cover anything between 70mm and 320mm on those camera's and upto 448mm with a 1.4TC.

Maybe I should sell the 24-105, but it's such a nice walkaround on the 5.

Ahhh... see? I am driving myself nutters.

[swampler]

Originally Posted by afterburn

Thanks guys.

But I can't help but wonder if there isn't too much overlap between the lenses I already have. I mean, between the 5D and 30D, the combo 17-40 and 24-105 cover anything between 17mm and 168mm.

On the other hand, the 70-200 can cover anything between 70mm and 320mm on those camera's and upto 448mm with a 1.4TC.

Maybe I should sell the 24-105, but it's such a nice walkaround on the 5.

Ahhh... see? I am driving myself nutters.

Personally, I think I would use the 24-105 on the 5D and the 70-200 f/2.8L on the 30D. The 17-40 is equiv to a 28-64 on the 30D, so the 24-105 is wider and longer on the 5D and the crop of the 30D makes the 70-200 equiv to 320 on the long end. This would maximize your focal range fov to 24 - 320, then you can add a TC as necessary for even more reach. The 17-40 would be totally covered by the dual camera combo.

You could then sell the 17-40 without sacrificing anything, unless the 17-40 provides another benefit that you need.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by swampler

The 17-40 would be totally covered by the dual camera combo.

You could then sell the 17-40 without sacrificing anything, unless the 17-40 provides another benefit that you need.

...the 17-40F4L could provide UWA (17mm - 24mm) on the 5D ...

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[afterburn]

Yes, the 17mm is awesome on the 5D. I'd never let the 17-40 go, unless I got me something even wider.

[golfer]

I don't really see that much overlap if you look at how you might use the lenses instead of the mm of length. The 17x40 is a great wide angle lense. You can use it for those wide angle applacations, especially when the other lenses won't get the full shot you want, ie: landscapes.
The 24x105 is a wonderful walk around lense and will cover many uses when the 70x200 might be to heavy to carry.
The 70x200 can be used indoors and out, works good for portraits through landscapes expecially good when ther is low light.
I am contiunally finding new uses for each of my lenses and places where one will work when the other will not.
IMO you do not really have much overlap. If you had a 17x40 and a 16x32, then you would have overlap.
Best wishes.

[swampler]

Originally Posted by Max@Home

...the 17-40F4L could provide UWA (17mm - 24mm) on the 5D ...

Doh, good point. Not having a 5D, I hadn't considered the UWA route as I haven't picked up a 10-20 yet.

I guess I would have to keep all 3 lenses, then.

[dougsmit]

Not all IS systems are equal. Has anyone seen a review of the IS boost of the 70-200 f/4L IS vs. the f/2.8? Lighter is easier to hold. If the IS is better then you regain some (certainly not all) of the stop difference unless you are into full aperture DOF. I really would like the 300 but it has the oldest IS technology making me wonder if it is the way to go right now. Since digital has been a major player, Canon has upped the IS claims considerably but older lenses are rarely updated. This is just one more point to consider in selecting the next purchase.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by dougsmit

Not all IS systems are equal. Has anyone seen a review of the IS boost of the 70-200 f/4L IS vs. the f/2.8?

nope, but F2.8IS is 2nd generation 2 stops, F4.0IS is fourth gen 4 stops...

Lighter is easier to hold. If the IS is better then you regain some (certainly not all) of the stop difference unless you are into full aperture DOF.

agreed

I really would like the 300 but it has the oldest IS technology making me wonder if it is the way to go right now.

IIRC/AFAIK 300F4L IS is 2nd gen, 2 stops IS, not oldest, but old(er)...

Since digital has been a major player, Canon has upped the IS claims considerably but older lenses are rarely updated.

EF14mmF2.8 II
EF50mm F1.8 II
EF85mmF1.2L II
EF16mm-35mmF2.8L II
EF70-300F4.5-F5.6 IS ('II', the old one being the 75-300 IS 'I' )
EF18-55F3.5F5.6 II

...and some more...

...some lenses do get updated, but it takes a while ...

This is just one more point to consider in selecting the next purchase.

again: agreed

...€0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[swampler]

Originally Posted by dougsmit

If the IS is better then you regain some (certainly not all) of the stop difference unless you are into full aperture DOF.

Originally Posted by Max@Home

agreed

I don't agree. IS does nothing to freeze the subject and the extra stop can mean the difference between getting the shot and not getting it, regardless of IS.

[afterburn]

I agree with Steve. You need higher shutter speeds to freeze subject motion and avoid blur. No amount of IS will prevent that if the shutter speeds are doing down due to aperture limitations.

[dougsmit]

Originally Posted by afterburn

I agree with Steve. You need higher shutter speeds to freeze subject motion and avoid blur. No amount of IS will prevent that if the shutter speeds are doing down due to aperture limitations.

Very correct and no single stop of shutter speed with sharpen up a lack of depth of field. No high shutterspeed will allow some parts of an image to blur leaving others sharp. While we are at it, we can consider bumping up the ISO allowing an f/4 lens to match the shutter speed of the f/2.8 at the original setting. The point is that all these controls need to be used with intelligence to conspire to make the photographer look good. One stop of anything can be compensated one way or another for some images and will prove a deal breaker for a few others. If you only shoot action and are already topped out on the ISO dial, you may want to replace that f/2.8 zoom with an f/2.0 prime. If you shoot a wide range of subjects and situations you may just find that a four stop boost in sharp static objects is a good thing to have added to your bag of tricks. IS, just like high speed lenses and a few other factors, will be of more value to some of us than others but the photographer's ability to match the proper tool to the need will turn out to be more important than any tech spec.