I Am Trying to Find a Telephoto Lens Around $500 (II)

[aj sellarole]

Hello, I am the same person who started the first "Telephoto Lens

Around $500", and I am enormously grateful for all the help given to

me there. I am writing this one as a follow up, because as a result

of the first one, I am left with lots more questions.

 

For those of you who didn't read my first one, I'll copy the first

one in, so we are on the same page, and/or you can look at the

original thread here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00FDN4

 

Those of you who already read the first one, and so know me a little

better, just skip down to where it says --Here--. Thanks for

bearing with me guys.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

Hello, I really need help finding a telephoto lens. I am 17, and

trying to research this for my father, (though I'm usually the

photographer), but I just need some guidance.

My dad is really pressing the issue on this lens: he needs me to

take some aerial photographs from about 300 ft, of buildings, in a

helicopter. Also, as this will be my first lens, it needs to be

useful for other types of telephoto photography after we take the

aerials.

 

I have a Digital Rebel XT. My dad was really hesitant to set a

price, because he wants a high quality lens, so if there is a lens

that you guys have in mind, that is not exactly $500, but is

clearer, or better made, or something like that, I would still like

to know about it.

 

I'm sorry to bother all you guys, it's just that I was just lost

while looking through the options. these things range from like,

$100 to Several thousands of dollars, and I don't even really know

what mm i would need.

 

Thank you all, and have a great weakend coming up here! Bye

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

--Here--

That was the original

 

 

I have sort of narrowed my choices down to these two lenses: EF 70-

200mm f/4.0L USM and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Both

have their advantages and their disadvantes for me.

 

I have heard great things about the sharpness and quality of the 70-

200 lens. The downside to this lens would be the lack of IS.

 

I am figuring on probably only having to zoom in about within 70-85,

so I was wondering if it is possible to make images taken with this

lens in a helicopter turn out better by using a very high shutter

speed. Do you think, though, that I would have to stop the aperture

down so much to get this speed that the building I would be shooting

would look blurry in spots?

 

The other lens, the 70-300 is supposedly not as high quality, but

does have IS. The best part about this is that it might help alot

in a shaking helicopter.

 

Generally, I think I am leaning towards the 70-200 because it is so

sharp, and focuses so fast. I think it would be the most useful to

me after the aerials are done with, but I do not want to get it if

it would not do a great job on the aerials, because that is the main

reason my dad is considering a lens, I just get to play with it

afterwards.

 

Once again, Thank you all very much, and have a great rest of the

night! Bye

[phoneguy]

70-200 f/4L again. You can't go wrong with this lens.

 

Mike

[pto189]

If one is clearly superior than the other, Canon must stop production of the inferior lens. Assuming Canon introduces the 70-300 f/4L IS at $1400, you still have very hard time to find a clear winner (best buy) among four lenses: 70-200 f/4L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, 70-300 f/4L IS, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

[pbizarro]

The IS lens no doubt.

[jim_larson1]

Yeah, but Phil the 70-200/2.8L-IS is about $1500, and a 70-300/4L-IS would be in the same price range.

 

Between the two $500-$600 lenses. . .man I dunno. I have been in a small plane with my 70-200/4L -> and I was really happy with the result.

 

I did keep the lens at very high shutter speed. Also. . . how clear are the windows of this craft? Plexiglass tends to get a bit nicked up over time.

 

At the ranges we are talking . . .say 500-1000'. . .I think you will find that DOF even at F4 is fairly deep. Like 100's of feet. Hmmm. I would go for the 70-200/4L.

 

(but I am biased: I own one! And I admit further bias: I want to ADD the 70-300/4L-IS to my arsenal)

[brad_w]

Vincent Laforet uses a 100-400 L for much of his aerial work. At $1200-1400, that's

probably out of your price range. Consider renting one for the days you need it.

 

The 70-200/4 is a great general purpose starter tele zoom. Probably not what you need

of want for the aerials as the zoom range is limited (you probably don't want to be

changing lenses up there) and there no IS.

 

Below is a link to Rob Galbraith's site, an article about Laforet's aerials in NYC:

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6454-6928

 

-b

[aj sellarole]

Hello, I have a final question. My dad would like to know, if I were to get one lens, and probably not buy another one again for a long time, and even if I have to go up to $1000, what would it be? Keep in mind that I would still have to use it to do the aerials, and that what I reallly want to shoot with on the ground is a telephoto, to get nature and wildlife and such.

 

Do you think it would be worth it to stay with a 70-200 4L, or is there a jump I can make within $1000 that would be worth it?

 

thank you all, and goodnight

[yakim_peled1]

<p> Both lenses were tested <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html">PZ</a>. <b></b> </p>

<p> As you can see, both are optically excellent but each has it's distinctive pros and cons. I chose the 70-300 IS and am not going to get the 70-200/4 L as <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EsnE&tag=">IS lets you get pictures when the L won't</a>. For me, that was the final deciding factor. I had the 70-200/4 L, 200/2.8 L and 300/4 L in the past and came to the conclusion that IS is a feature I don't want to live without in long lenses. Naturally, YMMV. </p>

<p> The AF is on the slow side (no IF, no ring-USM) and build quality is simply awful IMHO - cheap plastic, length changes when you zoom/focus, front element is rotating etc. - but until I can save enough for the 70-200/2.8 IS, this lens will stay in my bag.</p>

 

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[andy_van_eynde]

up to a 1000USD :

 

Consider the Sigma 70-200 f2.8

 

(about the same optical quality as the canon f2.8).

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_70200_28/index.htm

[mark u]

This is the guy you need to consult for advice:

 

http://www.earthfromtheair.com/yann.html

[andrew_carlson]

I'd stick with the 70-200L f/2.8 non-IS. IS isn't as important at 200mm as it is beyond 200mm. Some think IS is worth its weight in gold (or glass) but it's only as useful as far as you understand it.

[larry h.]

As I said in your first thread, I will recommend the IS lens. In my opinion, Helicopter = need IS, period. Second, at least according to the www.photozone.de tests, the 70-300 USM IS lens is *sharper* at 70mm (your intended focal length for aerial shots) than is the 70-200 L (but lab tests do know always tell all). Third, the 70-300 will have a *much, much* better range for your later purposes in nature and wildlife (an equivalent 480mm on your XT is barely enough for wildlife). (You'll still need a shorter focal length lens for other types of photography.) Fourth, I need to give you a little lesson on exposure.

 

The sunny 16 rule says that on a bright sunny day, your exposure should be aperture=f/16 and shutter speed=1/ISO. To get the absolutely highest quality, you should use ISO 100 (although on your camera ISO up to 800 is considered acceptable). So a sunny day would be f/16 at 1/100 sec. But sunny days may not be the best days to shoot because of harsh shadows. Overcast days will give more even lighting. Overcast days are usually 3-4 stops less bright than sunny days. Well, the worse case of 4 stops down would bring you to an exposure of f/4 and 1/100 sec.

 

There's another rule of thumb: When handholding a lens, you should use at a minimum a shutter speed of 1/effective focal length. That is for handholding on Terra Firma. At 70mm, your effective focal length will be 112mm. So, on a very cloudy day, you would not be able to handhold your lens on the ground, much less in a helicopter, and be able to use ISO 100. Using a polarizer (a good idea I mentioned in the previous thread) will rob you of another two stops of light.

 

On the other hand, with the 3-stop IS of the 70-300 IS USM, your picture would have the steadiness of a shutter speed equivalent to 1/800 sec when shooting at 1/100 sec. Even then, I would still recommend raising the ISO so that you can go to 1/200 or 1/400 sec. That way, the steadiness afforded you by IS would be equivalent to a shutter speed of 1/1600 sec or 1/3200 using the 70-200 L, without IS. This added advantage of having steadier picture, with less evidence of camera shake would negate the advantage of the 70-200 L sharpness, if in fact it were higher. Which photozone says it is not.

 

So, in short, I think that an IS lens will save your life in a vibrating helicopter. The max 300mm focal length will be a distinct advantage for wildlife photos. Finally, at least one lens test says the 70-300 is sharper than the 7-200 L.

 

So in my opinion, the IS lens is a no-brainer.

[whwhitejr]

Hi Vic, I still think that IS is great but if Dad won't up the anti up to IS the 70-200 F4L will work. (My 70-200F2.8 IS cost $1100 used from B$H a couple of years ago. It looked like a new one.)Looking thru some of my stuff I found this Picture I took a couple of weeks ago with a 17-40 F4 non IS at 40mm. At the time I was wishing I had a longer lense with me. But it will give you a look at 1000 ft @ 40mm, f8,1/400. as you go up to 200mm you will have to increase your shutter speed to 1/600 to 1/1000. So your f stop will have to come down. The chopper will get you closer so 70mm should be good allowing for a fair amount of f stop. Just keep the camera and your hands free of the chopper. Again I hope this helps If not please feel free to E-mail me whwhite@ametro.net,Bill

[j_robinson2]

Buy the 85 f/1.8 and then look for the 200 f/2.8 on the used market. Forget the zooms.

[gary petersen]

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/alibaby">Look here</a> at everything from the color cactus shot down to the bottom. They are all with a 20D and either the 17-85IS or the 70-300IS. I'm happy with both. Each can be found for the $500.00 mark you are looking for. Both for that grand you mentioned and then you don't need another lens for years.

[josphy]

Victor -- from the responses you got in the other thread, I got the impression that most people were steering you towards the shorter range -- more like 28-105 type of range -- for the aerial work, but I'm guessing you must have a lens that covers this range already -- probably the kit lens that went with your Rebel XT? So I think for you this is also just a good opportunity to pick up another lens for your real interest which is wildlife? So in that case, I would go for the 70-300mm. I think for animals and wildlife, you will prefer to have the extra reach out to 300mm, and also the IS so you can handhold in the field more easily. I wouldn't worry about reviews of one being slightly sharper than the other, etc. -- sometimes people just get caught up in splitting hairs of which lens is a fraction sharper than another, but in real life it makes no difference.