Too much to handle? 70-200L?

[zach_maurer]

Hello.

 

My main question is that I am in the market for a new telephoto zoom lens.

 

I have had about 4 months of experience with my current setup (Xti with Tamron 17-50/2.8). I love this set-up.

For everything. Period.

 

But lately, after shooting a road bike race, I realized I would like to get closer head shots etc.

 

In the future I plan to be shooting:

Skiing/Snowboarding (all over the mountain, park, races)

School Sports Matches and Candids etc.

More biking

Having the option in an upcoming trip to europe

Hiking Trips

Camping

 

Light weight is also a factor

 

Many of these will be in variable lighting conditions (the bike races and school photography especially)

 

So is the 70-2004L IS too much lens for me?

 

Should I settle for 55-250 or a 70-300?

 

Also, Although it may be superficial, has taping over the white paint with gaffers tape (3M brand) caused any

malfunctions?

 

Tell me if you need more info or anything

[bob_osullivan]

For what you are doing the 70-200 F4L IS sounds perfect. The 70-300 is a fine lens but it is a bit slower on the long end F5.6 and the front element rotates during focusing making use of a polarizer more difficult.

[zach_maurer]

Thanks for answering so quickly!

 

As a side note, is a polarizer an essential tool for the above sports?

 

I would imagine the snow sports could cause some glare...

[andrew_gale]

To answer your gaffers tape question, no. As long as you dont connect parts that move (focus ring that rotates when autofocusing) to something that doent move you will be fine. The tape is designed to be very sticky but also very residue free and shouldnt take the paint off your lens. If you are really worried that you might lose some paint, try it on an indescrete part of your lens first.

[zach_maurer]

Thanks

 

I've heard that the flourite elements in the lens change in heat(more than glass)

 

Under normal summer conditions 25 degrees Celsius is it "bad" for the lens?

[john_g10]

The 70-200mm F/4 L IS USM is probably the sharpest Canon lens. It's pretty light too.

[rob 101]

I have found in my 15 years of shooting that growing out of your equipment always leads to better choices when shopping for new stuff. Buying the latest and greatest dosent make you a good photographer shooting will. Knowing the limitations of your equipment will create a need and doing some online and hands on research works well. The 70-200F4 is a great lens and light but if your concern with taping over a stripe on your lens for vanity you may want to reevaluate a $1000 purchase. Sigma makes a 70-200 2.8 that is great and its around $800. I own this lens and just recently purchased the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS because I wanted IS and am in love with L optics. It was a pricier investment but one made based on a year of research and evaluating my needs. I use my Sigma on my tripod body and I walk around with the IS.

 

So I guess the moral of the story is don't worry so much about what other people are going to think about your equipment worry about what kind of images your taking. A pro can spot newbie ( not to say that being a newbie is bad we were all newbie’s at one point) by the way they react to the photographic scene and the images they produce.

 

Believe me I’ve seen amazing images taken with the simplest cheapest cameras and crappy images taken with the most expensive.

[g dan mitchell]

I've used that very lens to shoot bicycle racing - a good choice in my book.

[zach_maurer]

In response to Robert's post:

 

I respect your opinion on the matter, from your 15 years of shooting and experience, However these are my reasons:

 

I do understand that the camera doesn't make you a great photographer. And I have been doing much research on these lenses and their third party equivalents. That is one of the main reasons for asking this question.

 

The reasons I discounted the sigma from my list are:

 

I find a tripod obtrusive to the subjects and myself just carrying it around

No IS at such a focal length with a crop body will make many of my pictures hit or miss

Also for 200$ more there is a definite increase in optical and build quality.

 

 

Also I would rather spend $1000 on something that I'll keep forever or atleast sell for a deccent 2nd hand price than a bunch of mediocre lenses that in a year or so will be worthless.

 

Also, the tape is for MY peace of mind/minor safety, not vanity. Also, to the normal person tape on something like a white lens does help cloak its value.

[hakon_soreide]

The 70-200 f4.0 L IS is a brilliant lens - one of the sharpest I have ever used, and also feels relatively light (weighs half as much as your typical 70-200 f2.8) and comfortable to handhold for long days of shooting. In fact, I believe it actually might be so sharp that putting a 1.4 extender on it might degrade the optical quality so much that cropping and enlarging might actually yield the same result, but I have not tested this, so others might correct me if they have and found that I am wrong in that assumption. Also, it has absolutely no CA whatsoever.<p>

After getting it, I have only rarely had any other lens on my 5D.

 

[signature removed]

[milton-chris]

I love the passion of 'L' afficianados, though it seems that Zach has been willing to at least give serious consideration to a non-L lens, the Sigma 70-200. I own that lens and feel that it is important, given that so many new photographers read the commentary and advice here, to point out that the following is not a comment on the lens as much as it is a comment on market pricing and writer preference:

 

<< bunch of mediocre lenses that in a year or so will be worthless>>.

 

One could read that sentence to mean that all non-L glass is mediocre and holds no resale value in a very short timeframe, when nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, 'L' glass does an incredible job of holding it's value, no question about it, and it really does suck that a new Sigma 70-200 costs 50% less new than I paid for mine 18 months ago, and it's resale value would be probably 25% of what I paid for it. However, it was a move up from the 75-300 (or so) kit lens that came with my XTi, and it is light years ahead of that lens and is certainly capable of producing great pictures despite it being non-L glass.

 

Not looking to do anything other than present an observation, given the fact that a portion of pnet readership do not have English as their first language and I don't think they should take the quoted text verbatim,

[zach_maurer]

I apologize for the above quoted statement.

 

Chris is right in all respects and he took the time to type out what I was too lazy and hasty to do.

 

Thank you Chris, Ill keep it in mind for futher points.

 

It was a poor choice of words, and I apologize again.

I did not mean to say the sigma or any other lens was worthless.

[arie_vandervelden1]

Lightweight is relative. The 70-200 IS is certainly lighter than its f/2.8 brother. But it's still a big white lens made out of metal, big brick in the backpack. I have a 200/2.8 but I rarely bring it backpacking because it's so heavy.

 

I recently bought a 55-250/4-5.6 IS. Superlight at 390 g. Pretty sharp too at all focal lengths and apertures. AF speed is very good but not as blazing fast as ring-USM of course. Should be a nice lens for travelling. Big bang-for-the buck, even bigger bang-per-gram. Under-the-radar looks, doesn't scream Steal Me. Not the fastest lens in the world but neither is the 70-200/4 IS.

 

If you want to go faster than f/4 but don't need 200 mm, check out Sigma 50-150/2.8 and Tokina 50-135/2.8. These are a bit lighter. Another option would be to get a slower zoom and supplement it with a fast prime (e.g. 85/1.8) for times when you want to freeze action in low light.

[savas_kyprianides]

70-200 f/4 is largely plastic. Half the weight of the 2.8 version, which is largely metal.

[KenPapai]

I think the best Bike Racing zoom lens for film or crop sensors is the 70-200 2.8L. Whether you get the heavier I.S. is up to you (I don't want it, call me old school). 2.8 lenses are better focusing and offer you brighter viewfinders as well as more options (1.4 TC e.g.). Been there done that MANY times in that sport.

 

For the price of of the f/4 IS you can get the better lens, the non IS 2.8.

[milton-chris]

Thank you for responding so politely Zach. It's nice.

[rob 101]

I’m sorry if I sounded a arrogant about my experience but I was letting you know that I’ve used a lot of different cameras and a lot of different glass and from my experience the best way to shop is to shop with a need. Your original post said you were shooting skiing, snowboarding, and school sporting events. You also mentioned you owned your current equipment for four months so I took that to mean that you were only shooting for four months.

 

In my opinion those sporting events would benefit from a fast 2.8 lens. You’re going to need the speed to stop the action. The 55-250 is a 4-5.6 which is not considered a fast lens for its focal length. I see that your concern is getting in closer to the action but you may want to consider how well you can stop the action in various lighting conditions. You may also want to consider how well you can isolate your subject’s action. One other thing to consider is that your equipment may get banged around or at least dropped a few times running to grab a shot. That’s why some of those L lens are made of metal.

 

As for the Sigma its value has not changed for me seeing that I still use the lens. I recently sold all of my pro film bodies and got less that 20 percent of their original value but out of a need to upgrade I had to accept that fact. That’s the way of technology. Once I make a purchase I don't think about how much I can get for it later I just concentrate on what I'm getting from it now. Lens isn’t really things that become obsolete as fast as camera bodies. The 70-200 has been around for many years and it’s still a great lens. Yes it's heavy but it's also a 2.8, with IS and mostly metal. The Sigma is slightly lighter but had the same MTF rating as the Canon and has performed very well. I admit it’s a little slow in its focusing compared to the Canon but it is still a very sharp lens.

 

As for the F4 it’s a great lens and tested better for flare than the 2.8, it’s also lighter and is IS. Do you want the speed of a 2.8 or are you going to rely on the IS. Remember the IS is for camera shake and not for moving subjects which might be a consideration when shooting sports.

[William Michael]

I am of the opinion that F2.8 is more important than F4 and IS for the sports and candids you mentioned.

 

The next most important criterion is the IS, not the F4 (or the relative sharpness thereof) or the lightweight issue.

 

I understand that `lightweight` is your position, but I concur with Ken on these issues, especially the teleconvertor, bright viewfinder and AF . . .

 

A really long and general bit about IS, the 70 to 200, the F2.8, and various views and uses, including for snowboarding, is here:

 

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00QGI7

 

WW