20D Zoom Telephoto Lens Options

[dan_nitzel]

Having recently purchased a 20D, I have begun the search for a

telephoto zoom lens. I've looked at the Canons, Tamrons, and

Sigmas. The zoom range I've been looking at is about 70mm to 200mm

or 300 mm.

 

Like most people, I want to find a good sharp lens for a decent price

and would like to gage others opinions who may have used some of

these various brands. I've always been inclined to purchase a lens

from the camera manufacturer, as I have done with my previous Nikon

film cameras.

 

I did try the Tamron AF28-300MM F/3.5-6.3 XR Di. It seemed like a

very nice unit, almost too good to be true. One other lens I tried

was a Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus

Lens .

 

Any suggestions?

[mendonphoto]

I can tell you that the Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM is not a great lens. It's nearly unusable wide open beyond 200mm. But, it's cheap, so what can you expect? It'll be hard to find much better for $150.

 

What's your budget?

[mendonphoto]

Also, will the 20D autofocus with a max aperture of f/6.3? I think that normally you need f/5.6.

[bobatkins]

<em>It's nearly unusable wide open beyond 200mm</em>

<p>

Unless your lens is broken, this is just plain wrong. It's not the world's sharpest lens wide open at 300mm but it's perfectly usable. I could cite all sorts of numbers, but there's really no point. I've posted many examples shot with this lens in past articles and threads. There's one in the link below (shot with the IS version).

<p>

The 20D will autofocus just fine with Tamron f6.3 lenses. They play some sort of trick I assume to get past the normal f5.6 limit, but I just tested the <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/200_500_Di/">Tamron 200-500/5-6.3</a> on a 20D and AF was fine at 500mm and f6.3.

<p>

There's noting wrong with the Canon 75-300 lens as long as you don't expect miracles for $150.

[mike_p2]

Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS

 

Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L

 

Canon EF 70-200 f/4.0L

 

Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS

[mike_p2]

Sorry, I didn't notice word "decent" in connection to word "price".:)

But Canon EF 70-200 f/4.0L will fully satisfy your requirements, I guess.

[jbq]

Depends how much you're willing to spend (but since you bought a 20D over a DRebel I'd assume that money isn't that tight). I'm really happy with my 70-200/4L.

[awindsor]

Another vote for the 70-200/4L.

 

The 75-300 is a usable lens (I own one and used it in the past). I always used it stopped down on a tripod. I would avoid the so called hyperzooms (28-300 etc) since there are too many design compromises for the lenses to be really good.

[dan_nitzel]

My budget is about $300 but it has some wiggle room if that what it takes to get a good sharp image. I've have found in life that often times you get what you pay for.

 

I did also try out the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS. I was not allowed to try it outside like the Tamron AF28-300MM.

 

Is there significant difference between a lens that is optimized for digital over a lens that was originally designed for 35mm format?

 

I was recently in a major city that still had camera shops. While I am not a big Walmart fan, my new lens will be mail order, as the nearest camera shop is 150 miles distant.

 

To all, thanks for your QUICK response!. This is a very busy forum!

[dogbert]

I would second that the Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 lenses are perfectly useable across the entire range, and are actually pretty good at the short end.

 

I've done my own seare hing on this matter does not seem to be much around that has substantially better optics at the long end unless you prepared to make a big jump in price to go to Canon's "L" lenses.

 

Personally I would be really interested to see a head to head test of the Tamron hyperzoom against a 75-300 at the 300 end.

[mendonphoto]

I thought that it would be pretty clear that I wasn't saying that the lens didn't work beyond 200mm, but rather the quality gets pretty bad. My mistake. Yes, the lens, technically, does function between 200mm and 300mm.

 

At 300mm f/5.6, in my humble opinion, 5x7 is the largest print you can make with images shot with this lens without the pictures being unacceptably soft. But, I've only been using it for 18 months and am, therefore, clearly not too familiar with it. I guess I haven't found the "high-quality" switch for when you need more out if it.

[ryancarter]

When I started pursuing my photography track, a good friend and long time photographer told me to spend more money on my "glass" than on my camera. Even though digital may have changed this, I think there is still a lot of validity to this. My favorite lens to day for function and sharpness is the 70-200 2.8L IS. I am having some error issues with the lens, but the sharpness and contrast is amazing. With the lenses I currently own and the ones I have owned (including the 75-300 IS) in mind, if I could only own 1 lens, it would be the 70-200 2.8L IS lens. Just my opinion.

[jon_austin]

If you could afford to spend $1,500 or so for a 20D, it'd be a shame for you to go cheap now on the telephoto zoom. The Canon 70-200 f/4L is super sharp, and well worth the price differential over the 75-300 series, IMHO.

 

I'd strongly encourage you to save a while longer / budget the extra $$ / whatever, and get the 70-200/4. You won't regret it.

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

70-200 f4, or if it's too much money for you, the 100-300 f4.5-5.6usm. the 100-300 reportably focusses faster than the 70-300 which I personally find virtually unusable because of it's focus design (the image quality could be better too, as above).

 

Personally I bought a second hand telephoto zoom as I didn't like the cheap ones and couldn't afford the L lenses new.

[dogbert]

Having followed this issue for a while (it has been coverred in a few posts) the 70-200 f4L is always rated higher than the 75-300 canon zooms, as one would expect.

 

However, the weaknesses in the 75-300 Canon zooms IMHO are at the longer end, where the contrast and sharpness tend to drop off quite a bit. IMO at 75 mm the 75-300 Zoom is pretty sharp and contrasty. That said, I suspect a lot of 75-300 zoom users would use it at the long end a lot which might be doing it a diservice. After all a bad 300mm is better than no 300 mm, and if we didn't use its bad end we might be all talking about the nice shots you can get at the short end.

So has anyone done a head to head comparison of the 70-200 f4 versus the 75-300, while keeping the 75-300 below 200mm? Is a 50 per cent enlargement of the f4 L lens at 200mm that much better than an unenlarged shot at 300 mm? One would expect so, but I am not sure that this has been discussed.

[Former P.N Member]

Taken with a Canon 75-300 (IS version which is optically the same as the non-IS version).

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1551874">http://www.photo.net/photo/1551874</a>

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

In order of image quality,the canon options are:

<BR>75-300 (all versions).Some examples <a href="http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/ ">here</a> (note that action pics don't ness. show this slow focussing lens at it's best)

<BR>100-300/4-5.6 USM see a comparison

<a href="http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_2.html">here</a> .Note that the 100-300 doesn't allways beat the 75-300 so easily

<BR>The old 100-300/5.6 L lens fits in here somewhere.Has slow focus,still only f5.6 at the wide end and i'm not completely convinced it will beat the modern 100-300 lens by a whole lot...I'd be interested to see a comparison

<BR>70-300 IS DO ..but very expensive

<BR>70-200/4 L NOW we're getting into the good ones! :)

<br> 70-200/2.8 L

[yakim_peled1]

>> Having recently purchased a 20D, I have begun the search for a telephoto zoom lens.....My budget is about $300 but it has some wiggle room if that what it takes to get a good sharp image.

 

Investing 1500$ in a camera body and 300$ in a telephoto zoom lens does not sound like a good photographic sense to me. Your camera is a very capable picture taking machine and it would be a pity not to exploit it's full potential.

 

>> I've have found in life that often times you get what you pay for.

 

I completely agree with you and can add that apart from the 50/1.8, in lenses it's exactly the case.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[jim_larson1]

Just a note: I thought the aperture limit for AF was "below F8", so I would have expected a F6.3 lens to work just fine.

 

Another note: Someone asked about the impact of using a "non-digital lens" on a digital body: Answer: No impact. You just use the sharper, center portion of the lens. Someone would say that you are "paying for parts of the lens you don't use". I actually find the "non-digital lenses" to be more competitively priced (ie cheaper) than their digital cousins.

[lotsawa]

You might add a used 70-210/3.5-4.5 USM to the list. Have a look at <a href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox3.htm">Peter Kun Frary's Canon Telezoom Lenses</a>.

[ted_reyes]

Save up for the 70-200 f4 or f2.8.

 

Use a 50 f1.8 for the short term and zoom with feet. After using the 70-200, it is very hard to go back to a 100-300. There is a real difference.

[theoldmoose]

I used a used 70-210 for a while after getting my Digital Rebel. I only paid $135 for it, and it even came with a hood. I used it extensively for almost a year, and then, when I could afford it, I got the 70-300 DO IS. I found that one to be particularly suited to my style -- I wanted a bit more reach, liked the more compact lens for walking around, and the IS helps me quite a bit for handholding in available light situations.

 

Your needs may be different, and hence, you may reach a different conclusion. One thing you may wish to avoid, though, is apending a ton of money on a high-end lens before you learn your telephoto habits and wishes.

 

Oh, yes. I traded in the 70-210 for $100 when I got the new lens. $35 rent for a year for the used zoom seems like a bargain, to me.

 

Finding good used EOS lenses might be tricky, though. The popularity of the new Canon DSLRs has practically dried up that market. You may have to haunt locally-owned photo shops that have been in business for several decades, and tend to trade in used equipment, to find a decent selection of used lenses.

 

Getting a good used lens, though, could be very well worth the hunt.

[nigel whitaker]

Canon 70-200f2.8 L IS, or for less money, the Sigma 70-200f2.8 EX HSM, this compares very well against the optics of the non IS canon 70-200 f2.8 in magazine tests. I've had one of the Sigma lenses for a few years, and love it lots, I got it to replace a Canon 70-300 IS zoom as the 70-300, although IS, was to slow on the aperture for use indoors for sports. I have a 1.4 TC which gives me a 280mm f4 long lens, but the 1.6 conversion factor of the D20 would give a 320mm f2.8 at the long end, and focus very well in dim lighting, sounds good!