Lens help needed - 135L f/2, 200 2.8L, 70-200 F4

[philip_wilson]

<p>The 70-200 F2.8 is definately not the lens for street candids as it tends to draw attention. To the image quality point I bouight the non-IS version over the IS version as it appeared much better wide open (and $500 cheaper). The 70-200 F4 may well be the way to go. I have only got experience of the older FD mount 135mm F2 which is one of my favourite lenses. On a crop body it may be a little bit long for general use but it is great on full frame (or film). Even the FD version is much sharper than my 70-200 F2.8 EF zoom. I am not sure if you can order from the US but i would not be tempted to go below the B&H, Adorama KEH prices on new lenses. You can find people here who will advertise them for less but I would not suggest you try them. The adorama price is about (pounds) 650 so I suggest that you are careful with offers below this price.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Richard, I found an EF 80-200/2.8 L on eBay about six months ago for $400 (about 250 pounds), and couldn't be happier with it. It's IQ is much like that of my all-time favourite zoom, the FD 80-200/4 L.</p>

<p>Like Philip, I'm also a big fan of the FD 135/2. The EF 135/2 L is reportedly the sharpest lens Canon currently makes, and may be your best bet for street and compressed landscape work. But the 70-200/4 L would, of course, be more versatile.</p>

[richard_duncombe]

<p>Mark, that sounds like an amazing deal - if you want to make $100 profit id gladly buy it from you! I have never seen one of these for sale in the UK and have been looking for a few months now, i imagine that most were traded when the 70-200 2.8 came out and whoever bought them knew not to sell them on! I have heard great things too about the FD 135 f/2 but i think for the type of shooting i want to use it for the stop down metering needed might get in the way a little bit, im not sure i will have that much time to compose an image before the chance disappears? I would be happy to try one of these out (the FD 135/2 is very cheap) if you can suggest that i am wrong with this concern. Ive gotten nervous about the 70-200 f/4 as by accounts on here it will simply be useless in anything but bright sunshine.</p>

<p>Philip - ordering from the US would be ideal as lenses are about 40% cheaper than in the UK but for some reason UK customs puts a huge import tax on photographic equipment so by the time its arrived the costs are about even, i suppose i could ship it to an address in the states and then have a friend send it to me shipped as some other form of goods but it seems a long way round. Another vote for the 70-200 f/4 though, seems this lens is splitting oppinion. Again, FD mounts, in the real world are they usable on an EOS body?</p>

[w_t1]

<p>I have all 3 of these lenses and won't part with any one of them. For your purposes, I think the 70-200 zoom is the best choice. </p>

<p>(Another option that gets mentioned all the time in travel related questions, which I have adopted myself, is carrying a high quality p&s like G10 or LX3) You can get one of each for the price of a 135 f2 :=) Way less gear, way less weight, way less worries, at least for my gear to pic quality factor. </p>

<p>RE FD mounts, I use FD lenses on FD autobellows etc. attached to eos film or dslr bodies via glassless FD-EOS adapter, only good for macro, but i wouldnt waste my money on that process unless you already own FD lenses, I do.</p>

[richard_duncombe]

<p>Thanks everyone; today i have been offered a 24-105 f/4L for £600, and been asked to shoot a friend's wedding so it might be a toss up between that, the 70-200 f/4 or the 100 f/2. Im struggling to find universal acclaim for the 24-205 on crop sensor bodies though</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Richard,</p>

<p>I used the 24-105 on a crop body for quite a while and I really liked it. If you can get away with the 38mm equivalent wide angle then it's a superb lens. I was worried about it not being wide enough but it was very rare that it caused any problems. The added bonus of having an effective focal length of 168mm f4 with IS at your disposal sealed the deal. It was a toss up between that and the 17-40 f4L to use as my standard lens. But... I just knew that the 40mm maximum would get on my nerves. The 24-105 will manage a wedding nicely.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>Im struggling to find universal acclaim for the 24-205 on crop sensor bodies though</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>It works great but just in case, keep a 10-22 in the bag.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I have the 135 L, 200 L, and the 135 Zeiss Sonar for Contax.</p>

<p>All 3 are very good lenses. I find the 135 a much more useful focal length even on a FF (1Ds3). For your work on a crop sensor, as you describe your intended shots, I have to believe the 135 is a more useful focal length.</p>

<p>I recently did a comparison with the Zeiss and 135L, I was somewhat surprised that the L was consistently a bit more saturated in color, higher contrast, and higher resolution. I found it a tossup in out of focus rendition. I still like the Zeiss for tripod, manual focus work with it's less touchy focus and nice extended DOF scales. </p>

<p>I said "Wow" the first time I used the 135L, after owning it for 2 years and never using it, and wow again when I compared it to the Zeiss. I'd get this lens. </p>

[paul_b._davis1]

<p><em>It will need to be fairly general purpose...</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

Be advised, a 70 mm+ lens is definitely not general purpose. It is a telephoto lens, and will generally compress your perspective to a significant degree, especially on your 20D. It offers no wide angle, doesn't traditionally work for landscapes, and completely cuts you out of the "standard" 50mm perspective.</p>

<p>I would never go on vacation expecting that lens to be on my camera 90% of the time, even if I was shooting street.</p>

<p>Unless you're <strong>very</strong> unhappy with your Sigma, I'd recommend filling in the lower range with something like the 24-70L or even the 24-105L.</p>

<p>Also, the 70-200 f/4 is still a pretty big lens to be hauling around (See the second picture down):<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p>-Paul B. Davis</p>

<p> </p>

[markonestudios]

If you're looking for a good telephoto that will break neither your bank nor your back, I'd go for the 70-300 IS (rarely is the additional 100mm over a 70-200L mentioned). Another, non-photographic reason is that you plan to travel to some places that don't always have sterling security records, so a black lens is far less likely to draw the wrong kind of attention, if you get my drift. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you plan to do some backpacking, hitchhiking et al, rather than a structured, tour-guided jaunt.

<p>As paul says, I highly doubt it will sit on your camera body 90% of the time. I'd think the 10-22 and probably 35 and 50 would see a lot more action.

<p>I have the 24-105L which is a superb lens, but it rarely sees much action on my XTi. Doesn't quite go wide enough. Majority of the time I'll have my 17-40L.

<p>In conclusion, if you're after a good telephoto solution, I would second the suggestion for 70-300 IS and the 100/2 if you can get it. The others in your arsenal are decent.

[pekka_s]

<p>has anyone ordered lenses from<br>

<a href="http://www.hidigital.co.uk">http://www.hidigital.co.uk</a><br>

is it reliabile supplier?</p>

[ben_cops]

<p>To pick up on an earlier point about Warehouse Express, although the customer service is good, the site is less than honest about what's in stock, and they are usually significantly more expensive.</p>