budget lens: something around 200mm with tripod collar on the lens

[obakesan]

Hi

 

I've got a 10D and an EF100-300 f4.5-5.6 USM lens. Its "ok" for what it is, and

more or less does the things I want and expect of it. However it'd be real nice

to be able to use a monopod to steady / support the camera.

 

so, I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions of an "ok" lens which would

fit the EF mount, have a tripod collar mount on the lens and not cost as much as

EF 200 2.8 (which I regret not buying when I had the opportunity ...

 

Thanks

[ken munn]

Best bet might be the Canon 70-200 f4, with optional tripod ring. An off-the wall suggestion;

Sigma's 180 f3.5 macro, complete with tripod ring.

[ian riches]

Maybe I'm missing something - but I can't see what's wrong with using the 10D /

100-300 combination on a monopod using the 10D's tripod mount? That lens is

pretty light.

[chrisjb]

I have used this lens for many yr, on film, 1st dslr D30 thro to 40d, monopod on body tripod mount and its always been ok even with a x1.4 TC. Have you tried it with one ?

[arie_vandervelden1]

Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS. No tripod collar, but it has IS. You can attach the monopod to the camera body

[jeff_higdon]

Chris,

 

I support Arie's suggestion of the 70-300 IS. No tripod collar needed.

 

I had the 100-300 for a year. I really enjoyed the lens. But I wanted something either a little faster (the 70-300 is not) or that had IS as the 70-300 does. The improvement is very significant.

 

Whether to get that or the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) has been a source of much discussion on this board and I can argue for either. The price is about the same. But, what I will say is that since you are used to the 300mm without the need for an extender, I would go with the 70-300. You can sell your 100-300 on ebay or Craigslist for $150. If you got the 70-200, you might miss the extra reach or have to spend more for an extender.

 

The colors, the bokeh, the sharpness on the 70-300 are wonderful and, since it is not white you won't stand out much in the crowd etc. if that's a consideration. Although it's heavier than the 100-300 you absolutely don't need a tripod collar nor would it serve much use. I have used the lens on the Canon Xti with the body (not the lens) attached to a tripod or a monpod and it works fine - even out to 300mm in a dimly lit auditorium.

[richard_crowe4]

Either your lens or the newer 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens would work just fine on a tripod without needing a tripod

ring.

 

However, a tripod ring is very nice for switching from horizontal to vertical camera positions because the

camera/lens package is over the apex of the tripod and the tripod head in either position. This is definitely not

the case when using a non-tripod ring equipped lens and a tripod head without an L-bracket because the camera

is cantilevered over to the side in the vertical position. That causes the package to be somewhat out of balance.

 

A solution to having the camera balanced over the tripod head in both vertical and horizontal positions when you

are shooting with a non-tripod ring lens is to use an Arca Compatible quick release and a Really Right Stuff L-

Bracket.

 

http://reallyrightstuff.com/QR/05.html

 

However, if your quick-release system is the Manfrotto RC-2, there is an L-Type bracket available for that system

also. I have not used the Manfrotto design and it doesn't look as slick and neat as the RRS model. However, it

seems that it would serve the purpose of keeping the camera right over the tripod head in both positions.

 

http://www.adorama.com/BG341.html?searchinfo=manfrotto%20L%20plate&item_no=40

 

The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens with a tripod ring would also be a choice at a really inexpensive price for an "L"

glass. You can obtain a Chinese knock-off tripod ring at a really low cost from eBay.

 

http://photography.search.ebay.com/canon-tripod-ring_Cameras-

Photo_W0QQcatrefZC6QQfromZR4QQsacatZ625

[lester_wareham]

The 200/2.8 is not that expensive, I can't imaging much else being an improvement. You get the 70-200/4 but that is about the same price, weight but is longer and my memory is it does not come with a tripod ring either.

 

The 200/2.8 is short and light enough to use with the camera L-Plate but if you want to save money on the tripod ring I got a cheap one off Ebay, seems well made.

[obakesan]

Folks

 

thanks for all the suggestions. The reason I like the lens based tripod mount is not due to the weight, but due to the ease of changing from horizontal to vertical picture taking. My monopod (a silk) has no ability to tilt 90deg to facilitate this. Also, when I roughed up something to allow my 100-300 to be mounted that way I felt that the balance was better and it was less likely to 'resonate' ... I liked that

[obakesan]

Richard

 

your estimation of my (unstated) problems is spot on ... oh and that really right stuff bracket looks bewdiful!

 

thanks!

[ben_cops]

Why don't you ebay the 100-300 and buy the 200mm 2.8?

[obakesan]

Ben

 

not a bad idea ... but I think I'd still need another US$500 for the deal