What lenses would you recommend?

[jennifer_marroquin1]

Currently I own a Canon 10D and a few primes. I am looking at zooms

because of their versatility. In may I am planning on going on

vacation and do some nature viewing and in need of a telephoto zoom

lens. I will also use it for home nature viewing as well. The two

lenes that I am torn between are, the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS and

the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I know that one is better in available

light and the other has better zoom, but I just cannot make up my

mind. The reviews I have read seem to favor the 70-200 but I just

cannot help to think that the range of the 100-400 would be a huge

benefit for nature photography. I have been thinking about it for

weeks and still can't decide :) I will be using it for all kinds of

nature photography from big to small. If you had to choose one lens

from the two, which would it be? And why?

 

I am also looking for a zoom lens that I can take pictures of my son

and pets. I was looking at the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L but price wise, I

could only afford the telephoto zoom or the wide zoom. Since I would

have to save up for one or the other, is the 24-70 worth saving for or

could I get another lens that is cheaper that will give me similar

results?

 

 

Thanks,

Jennifer

[michaelschrag]

Jennifer,

 

This has been discussed many times. Please do a search of photo.net. Also, look at Fred Miranda's site. There are literally hundreds of opinions cataloged by people who actually own each lens.

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27

 

Alternative to 27-70L may be a Tamron 28-75

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00C0vZ

 

http://imageevent.com/otto/digitalcameras/digitalreflexcameras/tamronvscanon

[pturton]

Jennifer,

 

Both the 100-400 and 70-200 are quality zooms and you may not regret buying either one. Another option you could consider is the purchase of the 70-200 L IS and a Canon 1.4x TC to give a bit more reach until you can purchase the longer zoom or a 400 prime. But, if your main interest is wildlife and nature including backyard birds, the 70-200 is too short. 280mm is an absolute bare minimum.

 

As for the 24-70 zoom, I was planning on purchasing this lens but decided instead to buy a 35mm prime since I seldom need anything wider and a 35 on one body and an 85 on another replaces my need for a short zoom.

[micheleberti]

I'd take the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and eventually buy a 1.4x

[J.W. Wall]

Not sure what you mean by "nature viewing." My experience is that no telephoto lens beats a good pair of binoculars.

[WM]

I would go for the 70-200/2.8L IS, and either a 1.4x or 2x TC because it gives you more flexibility. If you don't need a long zoom, just take off the TC. The 70-200 range is great for headshots of people and even portraits of a few people from a distance, giving you incredibly nice background blur at f2.8. The Bokeh on the 70-200 is just beautifully smooth.

[phoneguy]

If your needing a one time zoom for vacation, I suppose you could get the 100-400, but if you think you would be taking a lot more pictures of your son and pets, the 70-200 2.8L would be the way to go. The 70-200 is a great portrait lens, and as stated before, the bokeh is smooth, and outstanding.

 

Mike

[robin_sibson1]

70~200 on its own has a great reputation, and with the Extender 1.4x should be fine, but there's a lot of tests now that show 70~200 with the Extender 2x to give considerably poorer performance than the 100~400 at 400mm, so if you want to go beyond 280mm regularly, the 70~200 is not a good choice. In my experience of regular nature/safari trips to a variety of environments (Africa, Seychelles, Australia) the 100~400 on a 1.6-factor camera (I use a 20D) is an excellent combination for the sort of opportunistic photography that is a big part of such trips. For that sort of usage, IS is just about essential (rules out the optically very good 400/5.6), and I feel the need for the flexibility of the zoom (rules out the 300/4IS optionally with Extender 1.4x, and incidentally the Photozone test does not rate that combination as highly as many users seem to regard it). Although I don't use the 100~400 at 400mm by any means all the time, it does see at lot of use at that setting, and even 70~200 with the Extender 1.4x would be too short.

 

For a medium-wide to medium-long zoom, think about the 24~105IS, which is an excellent lens on the 1.6-factor bodies, and at least in the UK is substantially cheaper than the 24~70 as well as being lighter, having a wider zoom range, and having IS.

[jim_mueller2]

::::::::rules out the 300/4IS optionally with Extender 1.4x, and incidentally the Photozone test does not rate that combination as highly as many users seem to regard it::::::::

 

Actually, Photozone conducted the test a second time and found 300/4 IS + 1.4X TC II to be sharper than the 100-400/4.5-5.6 zoom. I've been using the 300/4 IS + 1.4X for a couple of years and find it to be very very sharp. I've also read and seen tests that show the 100-400 zoom to be sharper. I don't think there's a diffinitive answer as to which of the two is sharper.

[robin_sibson1]

Thanks, I had not seen the re-test of the 300/4IS. If I remember correctly, the original lens was fine on its own, although perhaps not quite as good as this one, but the lens-Extender combination was very disappointing - surprisingly so. I did wonder if it was a problem with the Extender rather than the lens. The new result with the Extender is very much more in line with what I would have expected, and with what many users have claimed on a more subjective basis than these tests, namely a bit better than the 100~400 - although of course there is sample variation with that lens as well. For example, my own 100~400 is certainly pretty good at 400, but definitely better when stopped down slightly, and that does not show up on the PZ test. The versatility is still the critical feature for me, although of course for someone happy to use more than one body the situation would be different.

[jim_mueller2]

Just for grins you may want to check out this test: 100-400/4.5-5.6, 400/5.6, 300/4 IS + 1.4X Kenko TC, 70-200/2.8 + 2X, etc.

 

I found it very interesting though not necessarily 100% valid. It's a fun read that demonstrates that the 100-400 zoom can actually be sharper due to sample variation and perhaps the type of tele-converter used etc.. Draw your own conclusions.

 

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/teletest

[mike_broderick]

I own a 100-400L, and absolutely loved it with my 10D. Wonderful and carryable combination for wildlife. Assuming wildlife is the key application for you, my suggestion is the 100-400, especially over any 70-200. Wonderful highly flexible lens, and my copy was awesomely sharp on a 1.6 crop body (drops to only "good" on my full frame, higher-resolution 1Ds).

 

For what you describe, if you do go for a shorter zoom, I'd pick the 24-105 over the 24-70. Lighter, and better for most things (moving subjects in very low light being an important exception, admittedly). I should caution here that I have only used a 28-70 (predecessor to the 24-70) and not the 24-105, but I'm still positive.

[robin_sibson1]

Mike, pixel size on the 20D is smaller than that on the 1Ds, so compared to a cropped 1Ds frame the 20D would be more demanding, not less, in terms of lens performance. However, the 1Ds, being full frame, uses more of the image circle. Is that what causes your evaluation to drop when the lens is used on the 1Ds? That's certainly how I would see it coming from film. In particular, at 400mm and f/5.6 there is noticeable vignetting on FF but it is hardly perceptible across the 1.6-factor sensor.

[robin_sibson1]

Sorry, I didn't read carefully enough to see that your 1.6-factor body was a 10D not a 20D, but the same still applies: 10D pixels are very slightly smaller than those on the 1Ds.