Advice on buying a single telephoto lens

Believe it or not, I don't own a telephoto lens. I shoot with a 5D with a 24mm

TS-E and the 35mm and 50mm primes. My subjects are old, historic buildings. I

shot in daylight, always with a tripod.

 

I need to reach architectural details on 2nd, 3rd, 4th story levels. I've

gotten by using the 50mm prime, cropping and resizing. The resulting quality is

not really saleable. I need to add a medium telephoto lens that I would use for

perhaps 10% of my shots. Large, high quality files are my priority. Cost is a

problem. Like everyone else weight/size is a consideration but lens speed is not

necessary for me.

 

I have read everything I can find on the 90mm TS-E, 135 F2, 200mm F2.8 and the

70-200mm F4; And this is the problem. I have read so much that I am now

"completely tied-up in my underwear" and can't make a decision.

 

Has anyone been in this situation and what lens did you find did the job?

 

Thanks,

John

You seem to be covering from 90mm to 200mm. To me the big question is what focal length do you think you need? All the lens you mentioned are up to the job.

 

Jason

If cost is a problem, two cheaper but very good lenses are the 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm macro which can be used at more distant focusing distances quite nicely.

Jason,

 

I'm not sure. The 135-200 length will give me 3X or 4X multiplication of the 50mm and I'm guessing will fill the frame from the usual ground level shooting positions available to me. I haven't thought about renting one of these lenses to get a more concrete idea about a particular focal length. Your response makes me think I should consider this.

I'd vote for the 135/2 or the 200/2.8 - reasonable size and cost with excellent image quality. The other tilt shift lenses are not L for some reason and will generally not give you the same quality that you are getting out of the 24. If you are making money then I suggest getting the best tool for the job even if it means saving a bit longer to get it

 

www.pbase.com/josephwcarey

 

JC

The 135/2.8 is very modest in size and weight, and very low in cost, if it meets your length needs. The soft focus feature doesn't function unless turned on, the lens is respectably sharp (mine is about the same as my 70-200/4, and slightly less sharp than the 50/1.8 or 90 tilt-shift). I recommend picking up the optional hood.

 

The 90mm tilt-shift lens is awesomely sharp if the focal length is sufficient. You'd know better than I if the tilting (or conceivably shifting) would be useful for you. You can add a teleconverter to the lens for more length, and it remains very very sharp.

Get the 70-200mm 4.0 IS lens. Way more versatile than a fixed length tele. There's a good rebate now. The only lens you will need > 50mm. Good luck!

Rent the EF 135mm f/2 l; and the Extender 1.4x. On a 5d this will cover 135mm and 189mm f2.5 focal lengths. With Extender 2x, it will also cover 270mm f4.

Forgot to add the 70-200mm f4 l; with its Flourite element, this lens is very sharp, and very light to carry around.

I do similar work shooting details on historic churches for a restoration trust. Sometimes a gargoyle or whatever will be perched up high and require a telephoto at full stretch. However often the detail is closer or larger and a shorter focal length is required. So I find that the range of foval length required is large. I pondered primes as the 200 f2.8 L gets excellent reviews. However the quality of the longer modern zooms convinced me. With the 5D I find the 70-300 f4.5-6 IS most useful. Before that I used the 70-200 L f4 plus a 1.4TC where required but as I also shoot handheld decided the IS would be useful.

 

I suggest for you the 70-200 f4 L zoom is probably the best bet as you would not benefit from IS. This lens is very sharp indeed, close to a prime in quality.<div></div>

A 599 picel wide crop froma shot with the 70-300 IS. The 70-200 L is even better<div></div>

I'm with Colin on the 70-200 f/4 L lens. Just got one and it's a beauty. At lower cost the 28-135 is a nice lens too, very useful to me, but the L is a different ballgame as far as quality goes.

I agree to consider stepping up to the 85mm f1.8 lens and then maybe a 135mm f2 lens. I

have both and like them for events and other photography I can't get close enough. I

originally bought a 85mm f1.2 II which is excellent but too large for many uses.

John,

 

Spending cash on a 10% of the time lens, now thats a realistic way of looking at things.

 

I also use the 5D.

 

My initial reaction was in favour of the 70-200 f4 (Non IS) the reason being you probably

close down the aperture, hence faster lenses are not so important. It is a fantastic lens,

but indoors you may need and should use a tripod, with apertures around f8

This comes in at about 450quid.

 

Going up in price, the magical 70-300 DO is, its exceptionally small, and the image quality

is superb. I consider this one of Canons unsung hero lenses. Considering you think that

you will only use it 10% of the time, if size is important to you then this is ideal. Think

about carrying around the larger lenses for 10% use... you would probably leave behind

the 70-200 which is twice the size.

Coming in around 750quid

 

Now considering the primes:

 

I too am lured by the 85 f1.8 Its a cracking lens, its small enough that it can fit in the bag

most of the time, its price and purpose fit in with your buying motives. for the one off

grab shots in dull illumination, the 1.8 aperture is great. Considering that it will give you a

stop faster shutter speed than the 135f2l may make or break a shot.

A steal at 170quid.

 

Then there is the 200 f2.8, personally i think that your money would be better spent on

the 70-200or300 zooms. But again a cracking lens and also much over looked by the

punters in favor of the zooms. This with the 1.4 extender makes a 280 f4 lens.

This is the same price as the 70-200f4L

 

Lastly, Canons 135 f2L pricey for something that you will use one shot in 10, but in itself

it is a great lens, probably one of Canons best lenses. This is the second of three lenses to

prevent me buying the 85 f1.8. Its better and longer than the 85, can take the extender

that I have to make a 190mm f2.8 which in itself is very useful. but its a shutter stop

slower...

 

For the same cost of renting these lenses if I were you I would buy the 85 f1.8...

 

I think that you need to isolate a focal length, or alternatively think outside the box and

assess what else you are photographically interested in, to establish if the next lens may

be further categorised. I believe that you will either purchase the 70-300 DOis or the 85

f1.8.

 

I'm going through the dilema of 2/3rds of a stop speed advantage at the cost of 2/3rds

focal length. Man I want a 200 f1.8L

 

 

Cheers G

John,

 

I think renting a 70-200f4 would be a good idea for you. Stoped down to f8 and I think this lens will amaze you for an affordable zoom. If the sharpness is still not there then you can at least get a better idea at your ideal focal length.

 

Jason

Hi,

 

If you consider the TS-E lenses again, I want to correct one thing. I've used all three at one point or another, and currently own the 24 and 45.

 

The 90 is the sharpest of the three TS-Es. The 45 is a close second and the 24 is the softest, even though its the only L-series of the three. Most of the 24mm's relatively minor image issues are related to chromatic abberation. It's usually pretty easily corrected in Photoshop (or whatever).

 

Build quality and all are identical across three TS-Es. L-series, by definition, must contain some exotic glass such as ED or UD. It's unnecessary in the 45 and 90mm, so they don't qualify as L's.

 

I agree with Jason, you might want to rent one or the other or several of your candidates to try them out, and really see how they fit your personal style.

Rent or borrow a 100-400 and just test the different focal lengths to see which ones you will end up using. Then get the lens that covers it. I would think that a zoom will let you get the distant objects without standing in dangerous places. For price, I think that remembering that the consumer lenses test very well when stopped down well help your wallet. It isn't clear if the color contrast is important to your work and I don't have any idea which of the non-L zooms have the color contrast you might want. I don't shoot your type work, but I did buy my portrait lens by seeing what focal lengths I liked on a zoom first.

I want to thank you all for your comments. This was very helpful to me. I especially want to thank Colin for taking the time to post his images. The gargoyle is exactly the type of image I have in my mind's eye and made quite an impression on my thinking.

 

I've decided to get the 70-200 F4.0L. Here is my thinking. none of you need to know this since you are already ahead of me on this telephoto issue but others finding this thread in the archives might benefit from seeing the outcome.

 

Neither the 85mm nor 90mm TS-E have sufficiently greater magnification over my 50mm. I need more reach as Colin suggests. I owned the FD version of the 85mm. It was a beautifully simple and effective lens. The 90 TS-E is reputed to be a magnificent lens. But I inevitably will be tilting my camera up at virtually single plane subjects. Neither shift nor tilt functions would be used. Having this lens in my bag seems like a terrible waste of a beautiful lens.

 

The 135mm F2.0 is a magnificent lens that I would love to own but the cost with extenders for focal length versatility is prohibitive.

 

I never considered the 135mmF2.8 SF that Mike mentions. If I could afford two lens in the telephoto range I would take a closer look at this lens. Its test results for image quality are very good.

 

The 200mm F2.8L really tempts me. I am biased towards primes anyway and this len's image quality ratings are in the outstanding range. I can't move closer to the objects I want to shoot but I usually can move backwards and this lens takes both extenders for extra reach. It's only $125 more expensive than the 70-200 F4.0 and it would give me a somewhat brighter viewfinder image.

 

But the 70-200 F4.0 offers undeniable focal length flexibility and the tests show it having excellent image quality with almost negligible distortion which is important to me shooting architectural subjects. It also does well with the 1.4 extender. I owned an FD zoom once and I felt it encouraged me to become lazy about composition. I'm not worried about that here though since I can't approach my intended subjects anyway. At the very least, as Jason says, I will get a better idea of my ideal focal length for a reasonable price.

 

Thanks again everyone.

John