Canon lens for Canon 30d

[thomas_brabant1]

For about 40 years, I have used Leica lenses. Am greatly satisfied. But have

changed from R-7 to a digital 30D after using various point and shoot digital

cameras over the last 5-6 years. With an adapter, I have used two of my

favorite long focus Leica lenses, the APO 3.5 180, and the the 280 2.8 APO on

the 30D with some success. I love the sharpness. But the focusing is really

a problem with my 70 plus year old eyes.

 

I am thinking about selling one or one more of those lenses and buying canon

glass. Will the autofocus Canon lenses give me the same excellent sharptness

that the Leica lenses give me? I like to shoot birds and other fast moving

objects either sitting on or the fly from distances of 75 yards plus. Will the

canon glass do that easily for me?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Tom

[digitmstr]

The Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS is a superb lens and will work great alone and/or with the 1.4 TC.

[thomas_brabant1]

I hear you re the 300m Cannon. You say it is sharp. So is my 280 Leica APO. But will it autofocus on small objects at 75-100 yards?

[sattler123]

Tom, the autofocus in these high end Canon lenses is amazingly fast and accurate. YOu will have no problems focusing on the birds - you'll love that lens.

[smalinowski]

By the time the subject is 75 yards away, isn't the lens' focusing ring automatically set to infinity? I'm not sure what the focusing range for the 300/2.8 is, before everthing beyond becomes infinity.

[DickArnold]

Hi Tom. I am over seventy also. My eyes are not what they used to be. I have the following Canon lenses. A 17-40 F4L that Cost me under 700. It focuses just fine with my 400D. A 28-70 2.8L. Cost about a grand ten years ago. Works just fine and is quite sharp. I just bought a 100-400 4.5-5.6L. Cost 1350. They all focus quite rapidly on my new XTi body. I cannot compare lens quality with Leica primes but for the 13x19 enlargements I do they work just fine. I shoot wildlife also. There are some samples on my site if you click on my name. AF really helps these tired old eyes particularly in dim light. After I retired for the second time I opened a photo business and worked as a stringer for a newspaper. The 70-200 was a workhorse, I used it for everything from sports, to portraits, to weddings. After ten years it still works as well as the day I bought it despite a couple of hard drops, one of them on cement. I also have a 50mm 1.8 that costs 75 bucks new and is a highly capable lens although the AF is noisy and slower than the L lenses. My 100-400 has Image Stabilization and on a 1.6 crop which makes it equivilent to 640mm on the smaller sensor. Look at the swan and lighthouse in my portfolio. They were shot on the 100-400 and the 17mm side of the 17-40 respectively. You can't tell sharpness on the low resolution pictures we are limited to on this site. I think the color rendition of the L lenses is great. For zooms I think they are quite sharp. I understand the Canon 300 F4L prime is sharper than the zooms. I chose the longer zoom because I wanted the flexibilty but I understand that the 300 with the 1.4 extender is a bit sharper than my 100-zoom. I hope this helps.

[DickArnold]

The penultimate sentence should read 100-400 lens.

[thomas_brabant1]

Thanks, Dick for you answer. 70 years plus old eyes must "see together". To add another twist to my original question, I wonder it the Canon f4 300mm would be an answer to my quest. It should be considrably lighter than the 2.8 Leica that I have been hefting. I am getting to the age that I want to make things a little easier! But I don't want to trade quatlity in for it.

 

Thanks again for your comprehensive answer.

 

Tom

[thomas_brabant1]

And thanks to others who have answered! I guess I pointed out Dick becuase of our age!

Tom

[DickArnold]

I seriously considered the 300 F4L both with IS and without. There is some price difference between the two. I would also get 1.4 Canon Extender. I would rather have the extender than IS if I had to choose because of price. That will give the equivilent of over 600mm fixed focus and from all reviews I have read a very sharp high quality combination. Good luck Tom.

[sheryl_bury_michals]

Thomas,

 

although not in my 70's, i'm basically visually impaired (working off 1 eye), and I have both the 17-40L (which I got in December) and 100-400 (which I got 6 years ago) lenses, and am very happy with both in terms of speed and accuracy, both with my 30D and 10D. I may add that I used my 100-400 IS first with film 6 years ago, and loved the results taking shots of animals (in zoos mostly) and fast action things like rugby (which I mainly do). Focusing is not a problem with either lens at all, and I think you would be happy with both.

 

sheryl

[beauh44]

The Canon 500mm f/4L IS has incredibly fast autofocus. It has a focus limiter as well as a "memory" feature to recall the last distance focused upon so you can quickly return if you look away.

 

It's pretty much of a beast (~8.5 lbs) but it is a *very* sharp lens and when used with a monopod, isn't so bad. It also has Image Stabilization which is no gimick; it works well.

 

If 500mm is a bit too long and your budget permits the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS or 400mm f/2.8L IS would also AF *very* quickly, even under relatively low light and are both extremely sharp, well-made, Image Stabilized lenses. Neither is cheap but if you've been shooting with Leicas then they're not exactly giving those away, either. ;-) Good luck!

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I had the 300/4L IS USM. I've never had either of the lenses you currently use, so I can't compare it to them, but it is definitely a sharp lens. Professional quality, even wide open. AF is quick; AF accuracy is in large part determined by the body, but the 30D's AF system is pretty good and I doubt you will have problems.</p>

 

<p>All four of the 300mm EF primes Canon has made over the years (IS and non-IS versions of both f/2.8 and f/4) are top-notch lenses, with only relatively minor performance differences.</p>

[thomas_brabant1]

Scott, your question about 75 yards and infinity setting is well taken. I probably overstated the range that I like (or am forced) to shoot--probably more from between 25 and 50 yards. At that range, there is a very distinct focusing range short of infinity on my Leica 280, even though I like to manually shut down the aperture a couple or more stops from 2.8. Depends on the light and how much speed I need.

 

Thanks for the thought and it was perceptive to the question the way I stated it.

 

Tom

 

Also, thanks to all the other people who have since responded. I am going to think about this. I would love to use some of this Canon glass---but sure do hate to part with the Leica 280. It has been a dandy.

 

Tom