Want to buy a telephoto

[quicksilver1]

Hi Guys,

 

For a long time now, I have been thinking of buying a good telephoto

lens.

 

a) Should I be buying a prime telephoto or zoom telephoto ?

I have been thinking of buying a prime since I know for sure that it

will be good optically, will give me nice photographs and will be

fairly light. Should there be other considerations ?

 

My choices for now are fixed on

 

200mm f2.8

 

and 70-200 f4.

 

I would love to have the f4, but I am thinking of situations where it

would fail to give me a properly exposed photograph ( handheld).

 

Appreciate the suugestions and the feedback.

Raj

[bens]

need to know more about what you like to shoot. i've got a sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM that has been very good on the d30 and 10D. the recentn photo called "& Son" in my portfolio was taken with it. i find 2.8 indispensible for low light and for bokeh effect. you probably know the prime vs. zoom debate; primes are generally superior and less convenient; i only have primes below 70mm for that reason. but i got the 70-200 to shoot sports action, and need to move in and out quickly.

[tommyinca]

Both are good lens/choice. Buy what you need.

BTW: I asked myself the same question 6 month ago. I ended up buying a used 70-200 f2.8L for a few hundred dollar more. That one end up meeting my need more but I am sure I would have been just as happy if I selected the other two.

[manoj r c]

Well, even I also had the same dilemma..Finaly I bought 200mm 2.8 and my friend bought 70-200 f/4.Both are wonderful lenses.But 2.8 is sharper and ofcourse 1 stop faster.BTW, I returned 2.8 and bought 180 maro and now its my favourite lens.Hope this helps..

[steve_dunn2]

<p>First, you need to determine what focal length, or focal lengths, you will need. Easier said than done unless you're already accustomed to using something around the same range, unfortunately.</p>

 

<p>There is no question that a prime will be some/many/most/all of smaller, lighter, sharper, cheaper than a zoom of the same speed and including the same focal length. What the zoom gives you, in exchange for sacrificing some of those qualities, is the flexibility to have multiple focal lengths in one lens.</p>

 

<p>Both lenses are fine lenses - both have fine reputations and are clearly of professional quality. One thing to keep in mind with regard to your comment about f/4 handheld is that in order to get the faster shutter speed with the faster lens, you have to sacrifice some depth of field. Not a lot, really - neither a 200/2.8 nor a 200/4 has a great deal of depth of field, and sometimes less depth of field is what you want anyway. But the smaller your DOF, the more critical it becomes to ensure that you've focused accurately.</p>

 

<p>In case a personal anecdote might be useful: my first autofocus lens was a 28-105. When I needed longer, I realized I needed quite a bit longer, but wasn't prepared to give up the flexibility of a zoom, so I bought the 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM. Then, after using it for a while, I realized I mostly used it as a 300mm lens, and I wanted something sharper, longer, and with IS, so I bought the 300/4L IS USM and sold the 100-300, and later added the 1.4x teleconverter. (Ironically, once I go digital, the 300 will be too long for me, with an equivalent 480mm focal length, and when budget permits, I'm going to move back to a zoom - the 70-200/2.8L IS USM, keeping the 1.4x, so I effectively have a 112-320 that I can stretch to 450.)</p>

[w_t1]

i bought the 200 2.8 3 months ago, and I'm only sorry i didnt buy it years ago

tom in seattle

[david_lau3]

You need to ask yourself if you use 200mm mostly in the 70-200 range? or you don't mind carrying another lens in the 70-100 range?

 

If you use 200mm a lot hand held, then the 200/f2.8 is much more useful especially in low light situation. Long time ago I had the FD200/f4 prime which was light to carry. However I found it limiting in giving my fast enough shutter speed under low light. I later on changed to a FD200/f2.8 and now having the EOS 200/f2.8.

 

I do need a lens in the 70-100 range so I also carry my 85/f1.8.

[yakim_peled1]

I had the 70-200/4 but was not very happy with it. I sold it for the 85/1.8 and 200/2.8. I'm at peace now.......

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.