Canon telephoto zoom choice for EOS 20D

I have an EOS 20D with the 17-85 IS which I am really enjoying

(despite the concerns some express about its performance). This

represents a return to SLRs for me after a few years absence.

 

I have been digging into the telephoto options. Currently

considering:

70-200 f/4L: quality, price, weight (but no IS, slow and bit bulky);

70-200 f/2.8L: great quality, fast (but heavy and large);

70-200 f/2.8L IS: great quality, fast with IS (but even heavier and

larger;

135 f/2.0 L USM with 1.4x: great quality, fast, size, inconspicuous

(but fixed focal length and reduced flexibility);

OR: 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS: size, IS, good quality (but query DO

effects, and a bit slow).

 

The 70-200 f/4L has a number of attractions in terms of quality and

focal range without the heaviness (but with some of the bulkiness)

of the 70-200 f/2.8L lenses. I am seriously thinking this lens

(perhaps with a 1.4x) would suit my needs.

 

I was very close to going the f/2.8 for the flexibility the faster

lens provides and the joy at being able to own such a quality

product. But for my purposes (which include photographs during hikes

as well as other opportunities that demand a more discrete lens) the

size and weight is a bit overwhelming.

 

I am not a professional but enjoy quality images - but only if I can

take the equipment to where I need to go. Sometimes I could handle

the 70-200 f/2.8L size and weight and therefore enjoy the key

benefits of these fine lenses, but in most cases I think I could

not.

 

I have a preference for IS, having had some experience with it now

on the 17-85. On my admittedly limited experience, I think it a real

boon for handheld photography, particularly with a slower lens. This

combined with the conspicuous size and colour of the 70-200 f4L

leads me to explore other alternatives before I decide.

 

I am considering carefully the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS due to its

combination of compact size, (relatively) low weight, larger focal

range, IS and higher quality. I am conscious of the softer image

quality identified in many reviews and the concerns about some

quirky aspects of the DO technology (bokeh and flare, etc). But I

have also seen a number of reviews that suggset while not L quality

this lens provides a higher quality image than is available, for

example in the 70-300 f4 IS or the older 75-300(at an admittedly

very high price).

 

One camera salesman queried why would I buy a non-L lens for the

price of the f2.8L non-IS. The short answer is I don't think I

could take the f2.8 where I would want to take it.

 

Would welcome any thoughts on this decision.

Chris,

 

You didn't mention the New Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens.

There has been plenty of conversation on this forum about this lens and you should seriously consider it. From what you said above, this might be the lens that 'Fits The Bill". Check out the user reviews on the Fred Miranda site.

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294

 

I own this lens and love it on my Canon 20d. It's very close to an L lens in sharpness. It would meet your requirements for a nature walk-around lens. B&H Photo sells it for $570.

 

//Chuck

If you can afford the cost and weight penalty, in my opinion the 70-200 2.8 is a

MARVELOUS lens. What would be really GREAT would be the 70-200 f4 WITH IS, but they

don't make that combo. The 2.8 is bright, crisp, fast focusing, sharp and contrasty - can

get really selective depth of field at 2.8.

 

The real keys are what you want to use it for and how you plan to use it. Field portability

would generally point you to the f4, but available light work would drive you to the 2.8

version or the 2.8 IS. If you can employ a tripod, the slower f4 becomes competitive in

available light.

 

I have read the review on the DO lense, and have some reservations about images

produced in backlit or high flare conditions - unless you have fairly selective and

constrained use conditions where these issues are not a concern or are automatically ruled

out.

 

Because (until they cracked down on bringing that kind of camera/lens into figure skating

exhibitions (Tour of Champions, etc.) The 300mm f4 IS and the 70-200 2.8 were a GREAT

but expensive pair of lenses for that challenge. I have both and they are really super

pieces of optics!

I'd second the suggestion to look at the new EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM (the non-DO version).

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html

 

A number of reviewers have rated it higher than the DO lens and it's 1/2 the price. It doesn't have a ring USM motor or full time manual focus, but optically it's good.

FWIW, I have not looked back once since I bought the NON-IS 70-200 f/2.8 in October. The pictures that this lens is capable of taking are absolutely amazing. Yes, it's bulky. Yes, it's white.

 

One of the other posters suggested the 70-300 IS. If you don't need the constant speed of f/2.8, seriously consider this new lens. We recently one at work, and I was quite impressed with the results of it. Btw, this was my first IS experience. After handholding the same picture at 1/20s w/IS vs. w/o IS, even a co-worker with no-photography experience could -easily- see the difference on the 350's LCD screen (we never did "develop" those two shots on the computer, though).

 

When I was reviewing the zooms, had I bought the 70-200 f/4L, I would have kicked myself for not getting the speed of the 2.8. Had I bought the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, I would have kicked myself for not buying the Canon equivalent. Speed is/was my #1 concern.

 

-Eric

Thanks for being so quick and open in providing responses. Thanks Chuck and Bob for referring to the 70-300 IS and others for quite rightly again referring me to the lovely 70-200 L lenses.

 

Can I just pose a couple of follow ups?

 

The general thrust of the responses is to lead me away from the 70-300 DO - suggesting leave it alone. Two reasons seem to capture why.

 

First, it is too expensive and a better image quality f2.8L can be secured for the same money, or a lower build quality but near equivalent picture quality 70-300 IS can be secured for half the price. Question: But If the money is not a concern (I know it should be) is not the DO a higher quality (albeit not an L) product than the 70-300 f4 IS? (Thanks Bob I read your very useful reviews.)

 

Second, there are image quality concerns given the DO technology. On this, perhaps it might be a "horses for courses" thing. In other words if the 70-300 DI is expected to perform like a 70-200 L, forget it. But otherwise there is nothing really bad about the quality (save, perhaps for the bokeh and potential for flare (but even on those issues people appear to have varying experiences).

 

If portability is a key criteria, can owners of the 70-200s (particularly f2.8s) tell me how they can really serve the purpose? Can I seriously entertain taking such a very large lens on a serious hike or in other environments where portability is important? I want you to say yes and tell me how, because I am convinced on the quality issues and would love to own one. But when my wife, sons and most of my friends are ribbing me for lugging such a "monster" lens, have I got any answer other than to give a wry smile at their ignorance and my knowledge of the quality that I am carrying?

 

I know, probably no real answer, I just gotta decide. But would be interested how non-professional owners of the 70-200 f2.8s handle the bulk in the type of situations I describe.

 

Thanks.

instead of taking the 17-85 and 70-300 lens, how about just taking the new 24-105 L IS zoom. It won't cover the wide or the long ends but it is small, and light, and L quality, and has IS.

Thanks Sitthivet, an interesting suggestion. But I think I do need a greater focal length range. Hence my thinking is to complement rather than replace teh 17-85. But your suggestion does, of course, highlight the very good non-white L zooms that are available.

The 70-200 f4 L is a great buy. It is light enough to shoot hand held, but I usually use it with

a monopod. If you want the 2.8L then you almost need IS or a tripod. So you are stuck at one

extreme or the other. One thing to consider is that unlike film, you can increase the ISO for a

single shot. If you ever upgrade to a 5d, you can even shoot an occassional useful shot at ISO

1600.

The 70-200 f4 works great with the 20D. In low light you can crank up the ISO and get some

terrific images. It is, however, bright, white, and conspicuous - not overly heavy. I bought a

200 2.8L and had a sleazeball try and scam me out of my 70-200 f4 on Ebay last week. It's

back up for sale if you're interested.

Rich Reusser

Hi Chris,

 

Have the 70-200f4L: optically it is a darn good lens. Am very happy with it but if I had to give a "negative" point:

 

- keep in mind that it is quite a long lens and that the hood that is supplied with it is just massive!

 

This lens together with a 20d + EF-s 17-85 will just fit in my lowpro Nova2 AW bag.

So I bought a 2nd bag because I wanted to be able to but my camera in a bag when the 70-200 was still attached to it. And then you need a very deep bag.

 

If it is for serious hiking trips i would also have a look at that new 70-300 IS and maybe also the DO version.

Was already doubting between the previous IS version and the 70-200F4L. The DO was way too expensive for me comapred to its quality.

The 70-300 DO IS is smaller and can focus faster than the non-DO. The problem is you should not use it wide open at the short and long end, while it seems you can do that with the non-DO. Stopping down to f/8 or f/11 is really needed. Also you'd better not use an UV-filter as pointed out bij Xavier Henri:

<BR><A href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EnOV&tag=">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EnOV&tag=</A>

<BR><A

href="http://www.fovegraphy.com/UV_70_300DO_E.php">http://www.fovegraphy.com/UV_70_300DO_E.php</A>

<BR>

Personally I do not think other effects are an issue if properly stopped down.

It would be interesting to read the next article, where the author explains why he was using the 70-300 DO IS 70% of the time while at the same time he was lugging both the 300mm f/2.8L IS and the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS along (4kg):

<BR><A

href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangla-worked.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangla-worked.shtml</A>

<BR>

Well, even if the non-DO would be a better buy now, this kind of article makes you feel good about such a purchase :-)

<BR>I would not recommend taking heavy lenses while hiking, unless there are serious reasons to do so. Laws of physics do not apply; with every step they become more heavy.

Thanks Jeff and Richard - the 70-200 f4L clearly has its attractions. The shope didn't have one when I went there today, so I will need to try one.

 

Andy your point about the length of the f4L is what still concerns me.

 

Johan, I think you have focussed on what I noticed as I was contemplating the DO IS. My impression is that it does have some performance edge over the 70-300 IS (one would hope so for the price!). As a number of the reviews suggest, it is also capable of some fine image quality. My concerns on the heaviness of what are clearly better quality lenses (the f2.8Ls) are echoed in your comments about physics.

 

Maybe it is just that I am wanting to be convinced with the DO IS (and am like the fool being parted from his money), but my inclination is to give it a go. Just gotta try and find one to try first - noone around here seems to have one in stock (Melbourne, Australia).

 

Anyway thanks for the comments. (Am still happy to be convinced otherwise on the heavy lenses.)

Nice to be of help. I myself don't regret the purchase, but I also have a 200/2.8 prime if need be. If you can afford to wait, Klaus at www.photozone.de has scheduled a 70-300 DO IS for testing in february. Than you can compare it against the already tested non-DO. (yeah, I know, sample variation, blah blah)

Chris,

 

Re: the 70-300 IS DO lens

 

I bought it last year. Liked the idea of a 300mm lens that was half the size and weight of more traditional designs, i.e. small and light enough to easily travel with.

 

It is noticably not as sharp as the L lenses and doesn't perform well at 300mm. I would have kept it except it wasn't quite long enough for my bird photography, so switched to the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS. Clearly, it is not a handy travel lens but I like it for nature photography.

 

The new 70-300 IS lens sounds pretty nice if you think you need the additional length (vs the 70-200)

In my mind, the 70-300/DO is simply too expensive for what you get. You are paying a huge premium for the compact size. Not to mention the wonky DO effects.

 

I would not pine for a 70-200/4L-IS. This lens would not sell for less than $1250, similar to the 24-104/4L-IS. (unless. .. . you really want to spend THAT much on this one lens).

 

Honestly. . .I would not consider the 70-200/2.8L. For this size lens. . IS is really needed.

 

So. . that leaves the 70-200/2.8L-IS, 70-200/4L, and 70-300/IS. For the 70-200 lenses. . .you may want the 1.4TC.

 

Now. . . if your budget is around $1200. . your decision tree is obvious;

 

1) Wait a month, and see if a $1250 70-300/4L-IS appears. .. in not. .

 

2) Eliminate the 70-200/2.8L-IS, because of cost. . . then. .

 

3) Buy BOTH the 70-300/IS and 70-200/4L. That way, you get the joy of a top quality "L" lens (the 4L is regarded as equal to the 2.8L, maybe even better). And you get the joy of "IS".

A few months ago I pondered the same question for my 20D and bought the 70-300 DO IS lens as this was one of the lightest and smallest for it's focal length. So far I am very pleased with it even though it does show a strange bokeh (see photo). I have not had a lot of oportunity to use the lens as yet but on the first day (dull winter's day north London, UK)I pointed it out into the garden and suddenly a pair of woodpeckers arrived. I shot off a few shots and was well pleased as I had never seen these birds before in my garden. I took it as a good omen for having bought the most expensive lens I own.<div></div>

Sorry about the size of the image, I downsized it then sent the wrong one.<div></div>

Jeff, take that shot again at f/8 or better. It might be a surprise.

(even without bird)<div></div>

f8?

 

Personally. . .for $1000+, I expect *excellent* performance wide open. At F8 -> I could use a $150 75-300 and get sharp photos. (or a $400 75-300/IS)

Jim,

<BR>"3) Buy BOTH the 70-300/IS and 70-200/4L. That way, you get the joy of a top quality "L" lens (the 4L is regarded as equal to the 2.8L, maybe even better). And you get the joy of "IS"." ?

<BR>

For $1200+ I expect the convenience of one zoomlens :-)

<BR>

But seriously, f/8 is only 1 stop down, and for the rest the DO has the advantage. 'Wonky' is an exaggeration. Yes, I hoped for better performance wide open, but I am still pleased with it as it is. Besides, to get some dof you often have to stop down anyway.

<i>For $1200+ I expect the convenience of one zoomlens :-) </i>

<p>

But you also get the reliability of having TWO lenses :) <nudge, nudge>

<p>

Seriously though. . .I sometimes find it an eye opener to consider the possibility of using "more than one lens". I have the 70-200/4L with 1.4TC. I am <considering> the 70-300/IS for a future purchase. Honestly. . .I would not want to sell my 70-200/4L. And I honestly see bringing a different lens depending upon conditions. If Canon does produce 70-200/4L-IS -> I would view it the same way as the 24-105/4L-IS: A must buy at $950, and a "pass" at $1250.

<p>

<i>But seriously, f/8 is only 1 stop down</i>

<p>

But that just shows how <i>slow</i> this lens is. One stop down on my 70-200/4L is F5.6!

<p>

More later. . .

Here are a couple more shots taken more recently using the 70-300 DO IS lens. The first (a bluetit) was taken at f8 and shows that the lens can be sharp. The second (a nuthatch) was taken in dull conditions at f5.6 and is about 1/2 the original size.<div></div>

Second photo.<div></div>

Now there is an innovative and thoughtful solution Jim. I suppose this allows the choice to use in different applications. does it mean that when I go away, I will not have the better quality lens with me? If the DO gives me better performance than the 70-300 IS (yes I note the doubts expressed on that), then having that lens means I would have it on those trips when the more unusal shots are likely to arise.

 

But I think Jim's suggestion is worth thinking about. I must go see an f4L in real life (when the shops here get one in stock).

 

Thanks for the pics Jeff.