Canon telephoto zoom choice for EOS 20D

[steve torelli]

Chris,

I have owned the 70-200 f/4 and it is a great lens. I sold it though and got the 2.8 IS because I wanted the versatility it offered. Optically I find the two to be about the same.The speed and IS of the 2.8 allow me greater range and I definitely get more keepers with it over the f/4.The issue of size and weight is something that's very difficult to advise on. To me, the 70-200 is my walk around range.The dimensions of the lens don't bother me and I'd say I'm an average sized guy with average sized hands. If I could say one thing about the size and color of any lens it would be,don't let others, especially non-photogs, influence your choice. Don't worry about being "conspicuous". Don't pass up an excellent lens like the 70-200 in any of it's incarnations, because you don't want to stand out. After all, you're the one looking through the viewfinder.

[chris_jose]

Steve, what you say about others' perception clearly must be right, provided I can myself justify lugging such a large lens around. Image quality? - clearly where that is the primary consideration it justifies carrying the load.

 

In holding the 70-200 f2.8Ls I agree that the size is about right for handling. Its speed, IS, USM and image quality all make me drool. So, you might say, if you have the money just get the thing. But you would have gathered from my earlier vacillations that I am still uncertain as to whether it can be a 'walk around' lens for me.

 

Thanks all for not being too critical about my ups and downs on this. I promise, I will settle on the point soon.

[johan_prins]

Jim,<BR>

"But you also get the reliability of having TWO lenses :)"

<BR>uh...we are talking hiking, aren't we?<BR>I myself do have another lens in this range, the 200/2.8, but that one is not for travel.

<P>

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

<BR>So? I compared the DO with the non-DO. But a 70-200/4L IS (black please) usable wide open would mean 2 stops, and I agree that would start to be interesting. I might upgrade. Money doesn't matter, the lens will keep a higher value.<P>

Chris,<BR>

just buy the lens you want, you will regret you didn't buy another one anyway, eventually.

What kind of hiking do you do? If it is with backpack and tent, wouldn't that rule out a 2.8 monster?

[chris_jose]

Johan, not so much backpack and tent but certainly hiking. Let me give an example. Recent trip was to the Kimberley Western Australia - "expeditionary cruise" style which included some severe hiking but also some pretty benign "elderly tourist" activities. While the latter would have allowed the larger lens to be used, the former certainly would not. Had some wonderful opportunities for photos of landscape/wildlife, etc.

 

I now have a better camera - and, hopefully, will soon have a better lens. Maybe the two lens option makes some sense - 70-300 IS (not DO) with 70-200 for when it can be practically used (maybe even f2.8L, but otherwise f4L at least for now).

 

Perhaps the genesis of my confusion is the attempt to combine

inconsistent activity.

 

Anyway...

[pbizarro]

Some feedback form a user of the 70-300 DO IS lens:

 

1. This lens is perfect for travelling/hiking. It is very well built, and is quite capable of excellent results.

 

2. The new 70-300 IS is reportedly better optically than the above-mentioned lens, but the construction quality and handling is not as good.

 

3. All lenses are compromises, right? For the price of one DO you can buy two of the new lenses, so perhaps you don't care too much for construction quality in the end?

 

4. However, a rotating front element and lack of FTM would put me off. What I would like to see is an update of the 70-200 f/4 L, with IS, and black.

[chris_jose]

Thanks Paulo. I agree with what you say, which summarises why I would be willing to buy the more expensive DO in preference to the lower production quality (if not image quality) 70-300 IS. Many seem to pine for an updated 70-200 4L IS - but, of course, it doesn't exist.

 

I have an overseas trip in March and, subject to checking out the lenses physically, I am still leaning to the DO for now - and maybe I will go a 70-200 f2.8 later - for those times when its bulk does not matter so much.

[theoldmoose]

I started my DSLR journey a couple of years+ ago, with a Digital Rebel, the 18-55 kit lens, and a used 70-210 F4 (yes, 210, not 200 -- this was an older lens that has long been out of production).

 

After taking a few hundred shots with this combo, the first thing I did was get rid of the large (to me) 70-210 F4, and move to the much smaller, more portable (and packable) 70-300 DO IS. Compared to the 70-210 F4, it is sharper, as well (the 70-210 F4 was a so-so lens, I hear).

 

The next thing was to upgrade the 18-55 lens to the 17-85 IS (great improvement, there, as well), and finally the body to a 20D.

 

Now, my 'walk-around' consists of the 20D, 17-85, and 70-300 DO. These all fit nicely in a Lowepro Toploader Zoom bag, and have done very well for trips to the zoo (with grandkids in tow), various street fairs, etc.

 

I don't regret the $1000+ tag for the 70-300 DO IS. There simply isn't anything in its size and coverage range that would have suited me, so it was a no-brainer.

 

Your mileage may vary, of course.

[chris_jose]

Thanks very much for sharing your experience Dave. Sounds very similar to where I seek to end up (even if your journey started differently to mine).

 

My inclination remains to go the DO, although I will check the physical size of the 70-200 f4L.