Longer lens for Travel

[tdigi]

I am just starting to think about adding a long lens to my kit. I would like to get something longer

for travel ( hiking etc )

 

I currently own a 40D with Canon 17-40 F4, Tamron 28-75 2.8. Canon 50 1.4 and Canon 100 2.8

Macro.

 

 

I am leaning toward either:

 

1. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS

 

2. Canon 70-200 F4 IS

 

Not so sure about the 70-200 2.8's since they are pretty big and heavy and I can use my macro for

a long portrait lens or when I need something long and fast. Good logic? any other thoughts would

be welcomed.

 

Thanks

[marco_hidalgo]

Hi Tommy:

 

I own the 70-200 f4 and it is a great lens for travel. I do a lot of travel photography, in

the past three years I have been travelling for up to six months per year! And I

definitely like using the f4 over the f2.8. Many will say the 2.8 is far better, but the

extra weight does matter to me and to my back. Years ago, I used to haul around a

Nikon 80-200 f2.8 and got rid of it, as it was way too heavy for long trips or trekking.I

don't know about the IQ of the 70-300, but I would go for the L glass.

[zafar1]

If you do not have any particular application in mind then I would recommend the 70-300. The 70-200 is marginally better in IQ but the extra 100 mm that you get with 70-300 may help you take shots which you wouldn't with 70-200. Moreover it is lighter so it would do well on hiking trips.

[DickArnold]

Just for comparison. My 70-200 2.8L and my 100-400 4.5-5.6L weigh about the same, around 3lbs and stand about as tall as each other.with the 100-400 pulled in. I have traveled with the 100-400 or the 70-200 depending upon which I though I needed because of lighting considerations. The longer one is great for good light wildlife and sports. The 70-200 has been my companion for fourteen years through a number of uses and still functions like new. It is a great investment in terms of life cycle cost. It has sometimes not been well treated but is no worse for it.

[wayne_campbell]

"I am leaning toward either:

 

1. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS

 

2. Canon 70-200 F4 IS"

 

-if you find you are leaning on a regular basis you are making good choices in picking the

IS lenses which will compensate for such movement.

[hjoseph7]

1. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS

 

2. Canon 70-200 F4 IS

 

?

 

Hands down, get the 70-200 f4 IS it is a much, much better lens by leaps and bounds, beleive me I used both on the job.

[ken munn]

I faced the same question a few months back and went for the 70-300 IS. My logic? Less

weight, black not white, longer reach and 'good-enough' IQ.

 

Your mileage might well vary.

[james_sigle]

Tommy,

 

You might also consider the EF 200 f2.8L. If needed a 2X telextender still gives you IQ and speed similar to the 70-300.

 

Jim

[JeffOwen]

I got the 70-300 DO IS for travelling because of it's compact size. A great lens albeit with a strange bokeh.

[chrisjb]

I often consider the 70 300 DO because of its handy size, but no store ever seems to have one here, seems its not popular but sure looks practical :)

[james_de_h]

I think so many of us have asked this question that by now you would think there would be an easy answer. I originally decided on the 70-200 L F4 non-IS. Great lens but downsides for me included size, weight and a bit short at 200mm, even on a 1.6 crop body. Then I tried the DO 70-300 IS. All positive with regards to build and ease of use but I really did not like the IQ at much past 250, particualrly on my 5D. In fairness, it was fine all the way up to 300 on my 40D, but at the money I was expecting more of the DO. It is an expensive bit of glass. I then tried the 70-300 USM IS. Although build and IQ are not up to the 70-200 F4 or 70-300 DO, this lens has a good price to performance ratio. I use it mainly to shoot sport. A great match with the 40D and none too shabby on a 5D either. Try the 70-300 DO if you want build quality and compact size, but if you can put up with the lighter build and lack of full time manual focus, the 70-300 IS USM is a really good all rounder.

[chrisjb]

I found this thread an interesting read,

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-300do/

[tdigi]

Thanks for the advice. I will probably stay away from the DO, first off its slower, and

I have read reviews of it not being a really good performer especially for the money.

 

The 70-300 seems like a great deal for only around $500 I guess the question is

really does the better performance, build etc make up for the 100mm less reach

along with an extra $500 for the 70-200 F4 IS.

 

Again this would be used mainly outdoor for travel and probably sporting events.

 

I would think with this long of a lens IS is a must?

[jim_francis]

Just out of curiosity, what are you photographing? I travel constantly and rarely even take my 180 2.8. Generally the ongest lens I take is my 85, and the lens I use most is my 28.

[tdigi]

Good point Jim. To be honest I rarely feel I need go get longer then my 100mm.

However I have some future trips planned for machu picchu and Colorado. I also would

want this lens for sporting events ( baseball games etc ).

[andy_gulati3]

I like my 100/2. I know its not as flexible as the 70-200/4, but it's faster and doesn't weigh as much.