Best zoom?

<p>I recently traded my Nikon equipment and have fallen in love with my new 5DmII! It's about that time that I need a decent zoom and I'm disappointed to see that Canon doesn't offer a zoom that is 2.8 AND zooms to 300mm. Should I look off-brand? Should I settle for a 4.5/5.6? Do I need an L series, or is the $$ not worth the benefit? Please tell me what you use. Tell me what you like and what you don't! Thanks!</p>

<p><em><strong>I'm disappointed to see that Canon doesn't offer a zoom that is 2.8 AND zooms to 300mm</strong></em></p>

<p>Just curious, how often do you need 300mm at a wedding? And would you use it enough to warrant a $6000 price tag?</p>

<p>Sigma sells a 100-300 f/2.8 that will fit the Canon 5DII. I understand it is fairly decent, but a real beast to haul around. </p>

<p>I think I agree with RT though; do you really need 300mm? </p>

<p>If you do, perhaps you should opt for a 7D in conjunction with a 70-200 f/2.8L. I would bet the image quality very nearly the equal of the Sigma on your 5DII.</p>

"It's about that time that I need a decent zoom"

<p>Just to get some more background from you, what zoom range do you use mostly when you have used a telephoto? I ask because, when I got my first film SLR, I was gunning for a 70-300, but as I gained experience, I realised that I didn't really use that range (I borrowed a freind's Sigma 70-300 on occasion) So in fact I went on to buy a 50mm and a super wide angle. Even now, I'm not planning to get a long telephoto, but something in the 135mm range. I shoot FF dSLR as well as crop sensor now.

<p>Just food for thought :)

<p><em>“It's about that time that I need <strong>a decent zoom </strong>and I'm disappointed to see that Canon doesn't offer a zoom that is <strong>2.8 AND zooms to 300mm.”</strong></em><br /><strong><em></em></strong><br />Now just aside for the fact that I would argue that 300 is rarely useful at Weddings . . . you want “decent” and “f/2.8” and 300mm?</p>

<p>The currently available three (3) Canon F/2.8 70 to 200 zooms, would arguably be the best three optics in that class of zoom lens. Nikon’s 70 to 200 could be argued to be in that class too – this not a Nikon Vs Canon answer.</p>

<p>So we if we assume that optic is “decent” by your standards, you are saying want the zoom to go to 300mm and still be decent . . . do you have any idea if that zoom were made how much it would cost?</p>

<p>If you need 300 & F/2.8 & “decent” then buy the 300f/2.8L IS USM you will get “Decent +++”</p>

<p>Other options are the 70 to 200F2.8L USM and the x1.4MkII. Yes it only gets you to 280mm and it is F/4, but the optic is just below “Decent” and it is lighter and a trunk less cash than the 300/2.8L (or that other Sigma thing).</p>

<p>What I use - more often than not the 135L (and a x1.4MkII if necessary) - light, a stop faster @ 135mm and super super sharp: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=948936">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=948936</a></p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>The 70-200 is about as long as you will ever need for most cases except a church where you are not permitted to approach the couple. In that case, a 7D or other 1.6x crop camera will turn the 70-200 into a 112-320mm lens, which will give you the reach and the IS (if the lens has it).<br>

<br />This is exactly why I keep my 40D around.</p>

<p>As Joey mentioned, my primary reason for wanting a lens of this length would be during the ceremony, when I'm forced to stay at a considerable distance. The reason I wanted a 300mm rather than a 200mm is because my main lens is a 105mm, I didn't see enough of a difference for the $$, I'd rather have longer. There are certain shots that I want and just can't get with the length I have. I had a Tamron 70-300 2.8 for my Nikon. It came in very handy at those large/cathedral-like catholic churches but I freely admit that's ALMOST the only times I used it. I always thought speed was my first choice but I wanted to know what everyone else is doing since something will have to be compromised.</p>

<p>For the very few times I've ever needed a 300mm focal length, I use my 40D, 135mm lens and a 1.4x extender. There is only so much room in my shoulder bag, so each lens I carry with me all day must have a very good reason for being there. I don't even own a 70-200mm zoom.</p>

<p>Plus, there are other solutions. Like cropping out of a full frame image, where you can afford to do so since most ceremony images aren't going to be printed large. And re-creating, if there is something you just have to have as a closely cropped image. Most of the time, with a restriction placing you at the back of a large church, you aren't going to get optimum views of the action anyway.</p>

<p>I think you should get the Sigma 200-500 f2.8, it's a bargain at only $29,000, and it weighs in at a mere 34.6 pounds, with an overall length of 28.6" and a diameter of 9.3" http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/551435-REG/Sigma_597101_200_500mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html#specifications<br>

Sigma also offers the 120-300 f2.8 for $3,000, and that only weighs 5.7 pounds. As the others have said, I cannot recommend the Canon 70-200 enough-I use it mostly on my old 30D where it's a 105-320, and it's an excellent lens at half the weight of the Sigma. </p>

<p>The sigma is a 120-300 f/2.8 lens, has very good ratings, the 100-300 f/4 Sigma has excellent ratings.</p>

<p ><strong ><em >“I always thought speed was my first choice”:</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Yes IMO Lens SPEED should be the main criterion – but IMO there is no sense in buying a zoom lens just to use it as a Telephoto Prime – and then only occasionally.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As you have a 105, then maybe a 200/2.8 and a x1.4MkII is your answer, the 200/2.8 is cheaper, sharper, lighter (weight) than the 70 to 200/2.8 . . . and the Prime is Black, not White. (which is another reason I like the 135/2)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p>I was in the same boat as you regarding reach at long venues and didn't think 200mm would be long enough. This focal length does fine on a crop sensor. If you really need crisp images of knuckle hair during things like the ring exchange, just move closer, get what you need and then drop back.</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>The 300 would be too long. I use the 70-200 2.8 IS and on a full frame that lens is pure magic. It becomes useful inside during the ceremony or at the reception. Rent one for a week and I bet you will buy one the very next week. But if you get one, go for the gusto, get the 2.8 as a minimum and IS as a bonus. My 7D carries the 17-55 2.8 IS. Deadly combo! v/r Buffdr</p>

<p>There is a big limitation to any telephoto lens you plan on using in a dark church: Lack of IS will require a stable tripod. I hope you're shooting with more than one camera body as a professional.</p>

<p>Current B&H Prices:</p>

<p>Canon 70-200 f2.8L lens = $1300, 2.8 lbs<br>

Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS lens = $1899, 3.2 lbs<br>

Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II lens = $2499, 3.3 lbs<br>

Canon 300 f2.8L IS lens = $4499, 6 lbs</p>

<p>So what do you think a 70-300 f2.8L lens would cost, and what would it weigh? </p>