Good telephoto zoom for the Canon 50D

[mike_hitchen]

<p>The 70-300 IS is a very good lens for the money - I have one and have got pretty good pictures of birds in flight at 300mm but it does hunt a bit at times and I missed the shot; but this is as much about me learning its foibles in different situations. I have also added the Tamron 1.4x tc and the combination has been impressive compared to what I was expecting when photographing the full length of a rugby field (about 120 yards). I have not tried any of the 70-200 yet but fully intend to but here is my immediate thinking on the matter:<br>

If you need IS because you are concerned about your technique with slow-moving or stationary objects - 70-300 IS<br>

If you want to use the 200-300 range then the 70-300 avoids use of a tc - get the 70-300. I don't yet know how the 70-200 with tc compares with the 70-300 without one.<br>

wildlife - 70-300 with 1.4xtc . Fast moving wildlife may lead you to the 20-200 but the tc will compromise AF. Or the 100-400.<br>

Sports - maybe the 70-200 due to focussing speed<br>

Ultimate quality - 70-200 (the reviews echo thoughts here that the 70-300 is very close)<br>

Colour rendition - probably the 70-200 (though i wonder how much can be obtained with 70-300+photoshop)</p>

<p>One of the most common statements is that the 50D needs the very best glass to show its true quality so an upgrade of the 75-300 III is certainly needed, but what you replace it with depends a lot on how tight funds are and how you will use it. The 70-300 is the cheapest with the 70-200 f4l not far behind - the comparative quality of the four L combinations (f2.8/f4, IS/non-IS) is one of the most common topics on this forum and you can have many happy hours going ground in circles.</p>

<p>Can you hire any of them from nearby?</p>

 

[mike_whalen]

<p>I find the Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS to be very decent optically, and the IS works very well. However, IMO there are several shortcomings that make this lens undesirable. Mechanically, there is much to not like about it: it is very long when fully extended, the front face rotates when focusing, making it difficult to use a circular polarizer, and the barrel wobbles and makes noise when focusing. I also find when fully extended at 300mm sometimes it doesn't find a focus and hunts. I wish Canon would redesign this lens to fix it's mecahnical problems. Having said that, I still keep it since it works with my 5DII and is relatively inexpensive and compact.<br>

This may sound strange but I actually like the Canon 55-250 IS a little better (on a crop camera) even though it is a cheaper lens with 50mm less reach. I like the fact that it is lighter for travel and my copy seems to have a tighter more precise mechanical feel. Optically it is very good and the IS works well. I would give this a look.<br>

At the other end, the 70-200 f4L seems to be just about perfect in every respect. Yes, it cost more but in this regard, you get what you pay for. It is surprisingly light for white L glass and definately hand holdable. You may give up some reach, but both optically and mechanically, this lens is a gem. All movements are interal, focusining is fast and precise and optically, it's IQ is comparable to some prime lenses. One of Canon's finest.</p>

[pgranone]

<p>I use the Canon EF 70-200 F4 L<br /> It is an excellent lens with sharp contrasty images and fast focus<br /> I have no complaints with that lens<br>

The Canon EF 300mm F4 L IS is also excellent if you need a longer lens. <br /> I have had no problems with my copy. <br /> It also produces sharp contrasty images and has quick focus<br>

I find little use for IS as my subjects are always moving</p>

<p> </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Wow, <em>as a replacement to the 75-300</em> (which is what we're talking about here), IMHO, the 70-300 IS USM is an excellent choice. It's a good lens, and unless there are some serious reasons that you MUST have a constant f4, I wouldn't lose the effective additional range to get the 70-200, keep in mind, one's range on your 50 is 112-320mm (the 70-200), and the other's range is 112-480mm. frankly if you want to grab face and head shots of your kids on the playground from the benches, you'll need that extra 160mm of range, and most days that they'd actually be playing on the playground, you'd have it stopped down anyway.</p>

<p>If you are replacing your current 75-300, you will feel significantly shortchanged by a 70-200. That being said, I use a 70-200/2.8 IS for paid work, but use the 70-300 IS (recreationally) because it produces great imagery, has optimal range, and unless you NEED the speed, isn't worth the weight (or the risk of loss, after all, most of the recommended lenses are worth more than your 50, some by several thousand dollars...)</p>

[alin_daju]

<p>100-400 IS is great if you want zoom.<br>

I'd suggest kind of forget about the Teleconverters. They screw up your focus and exposure, I've been using one for a year by now. There's too much fiddling around with them.<br>

If short on cash, get the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, the crop factor will make them like an 480mm on the long end. Add a 1.4 Kenko TC and your lens will give you a 672mm zoom.</p>

[alex_dannenbaum]

<p>When facing a difficult question, I say go back to basics. I mean by that consider exactly how you will be using the lens. What kind of pictures will you be taking? How far away is your subject?<br>

I have start off by saying I own a 50D and a 70-200mm f/4 lens. I could not be happier with the package. I believe that the 70-200 is the better lens, for all the technical reasons many of previous posts pointed out it's strenghts. However there is a price to be paid...that price comes in the form of space and weight. <br>

The 70-200 will take up more space in your backpack (assuming you are carrying your 4 lenses around with you). It will also weigh a good bit more. In the camera shop this may not seem like a lot of difference, however if you are walking around all day with the camera/heavy lens around your neck or in your pack, you will feel the difference. <br>

What kind of shots requiring a telephoto would you like to take: Sports/Action, Wildlife, Photo Journailst, Travel, Family Events? Try and imagine yourself doing whatever you will be doing with the camera/lens package. If it involves lugging around a heavier lens for an extended time, you may want to go for the lighter of two. <br>

You mentioned you are not a fan of tripods. I solve that problem by using a compact light monopod for long days out. This allows me to prop the camera lens weightless, while I am waiting for the perfect shot, and also affords me some of the benefits of a tripod when necessary. However, if lugging around an additional piece of equipment does not appeal to you, then I guess the monopod is out. Another way to address the weight issue, is to either limit what lenes you carry with you, or simply keep fewer lenses and use the money you save to invest in quality. <br>

The 100mm extended reach on the 75-300 is significant. I hate having to digitially extend the range of a shot in post processing and degrade the quality. That defeats the purpose of having a better quality lens. I seem to do it a enough for my shots that after a few years I am definitely looking an upgrade myself to the 100-400mm. <br>

If being light and free is critical then go with the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III. If 200mm is adequate and quality of image is most important and you are willing to pay the price, ($ as well as wt.) then I say go fo rthe 70-200mm. </p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>I'll pile on with praising of the 70-200mm f/4L IS. I own it and use it a lot, with and without a 1.4TC. When you consider that it will AF with the TC and it has IS, it's an incredibly versatile lens for the money. I'd recommend it, plus the 1.4TC, without reservation.</p>

[chris_houlder]

<p>Wow! This thread has been extremely helpful and educational. Thanks for all the feedback. One thing I've concluded is that I need a little more time to decide on exactly what it is that I will be shooting.<br>

On a related note, my 50D just arrived. What a difference over the original digital rebel!</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Marcus said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>most of the recommended lenses are worth more than your 50, some by several thousand dollars...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd say that's untrue.</p>

<p>Even a lowly rebel will show better results with better lenses. The 50D's a step up from a lowly rebel and is certainly worth good lenses IMNSHO.</p>

<p>Marcus, why did you say that? Could you explain the reasoning or show examples from your experience?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance, Matthijs.</p>

[mark_ethridge]

<p>I will fall into the camp that says you will likely miss the extra 100mm of focal length if you go to a 70-200. They are excellent lenses, but when you are used to zooming out to 300 you'll often feel like you're hampered by the focal length. </p>

<p>I have the 75-300 that you have and it is terrible. Truly a starter lens and nothing more in my opinion. I have heard that the new 70-300 IS is much better, but I haven't used it. If you need IS and 300mm, this will likely be the most affordable way to get it (unless you go third party).</p>

<p>I now have the 100-400 and I absolutely love it unless I have to carry it very far. IS works very well and image quality is superb. Only downsides are weight and f/4-5.6 max apertures.</p>

<p>You definitely need to determine what you'll be shooting and in what conditions. Do you need IS? Do you need f/2.8? Do you need 300mm (or more)? Do you need light weight? All of the lenses mentioned in these posts are quite different from each other and you don't want to spend a lot of money just to find out you still can't do what you want to do.</p>

[chris_gampat]

<p>If you can find the old 80-200mm F2.8 L lens then you'll get better quality for around the same price as the lenses you're talking about.</p>

[anov]

<p>I think for a crop body; the 55-250 is hard to beat. Cheap ($250), light, short, <strong>has IS</strong>, pretty good IQ (has 1 UD element I think), gives equivalent FOV of 88-400mm on a FF. There's nothing on the FF world that matches it. I really miss this gem.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9748573">http://www.photo.net/photo/9748573</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9748586">http://www.photo.net/photo/9748586</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9748585">http://www.photo.net/photo/9748585</a></p>

 

[frederick_stevens2]

<p>David Stephens said - I'll pile on with praising of the 70-200mm f/4L IS. I own it and use it a lot, with and without a 1.4TC. When you consider that it will AF with the TC and it has IS, it's an incredibly versatile lens for the money. I'd recommend it, plus the 1.4TC, without reservation.<br>

<br /> I would agree. I was a little worried about IQ when using the 1.4TC on the 70-200mm IS but it seems to be OK. I use a 7D camera and the 70-200 becomes a 156mm - 448mm when you add the 1.4 TC to the 1.6 7D body</p>

[chris_houlder]

<p>ok, so I am now about to reopen this. My sense is that 200mm is going to be too short and I have been able to increase the amount of money I can spend by selling some older equipment. I feel really happy with the lens choices that I have made so far, but I am clearly without a telephoto option. I understand that I need to know what I am going to be shooting, but to be honest it's a little early in my photography journey to clearly articulate that. I am still trying to narrow down what I will be shooting. I live the idea of macro level insects and some wildlife shooting (which to be honest will be focused around zoos). Can someone help tee up some questions that I should be asking in making a decision on this. I would be willing to spend somewhere around $1600 on the lens and again I could stretch 20-25% beyond that for a phenomenal upgrade. I want a lens that I will not outgrow anytime soon and 200m seems to me to be starting me off with a limit. Again, that in advance for your advice.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Shooting wildlife around a zoo environment, an EF 70-200mm f/4L IS, plus the 1.4TC on your 50D will give you the reach you need, good IS and AF function and great sharpness, all within your budget.<br>

If you want to consider others, then ask, "Does it have IS" since you're not going to use a tripod and "Will it AF with a 1.4TC?" since you need that to work with animals, even slow moving animals.<br>

I've got this combination and the EF 400mm f/5.6L. I use the 400mm for BIF, but don't dare put the 1.4TC on it because the AF is so slow that it's useless for BIF. Perched birds and animals in a zoo are easy targets for the 70-200mm f/4L IS, with the 1.4TC attached.</p>

[chris_houlder]

<p>Thanks David. I just did some reading about the 1.4 TC and it sounds good as long as I am using a lens with at least f/4 capability - as you suggested above. Is there a downside to the 1.4 TC?</p>

[dcstep]

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks David. I just did some reading about the 1.4 TC and it sounds good as long as I am using a lens with at least f/4 capability - as you suggested above. Is there a downside to the 1.4 TC?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Two downsides, you lose effective aperture size and the IQ will be slightly down vs. a prime lens of the same effective focal length. A 200mm lens with the 1.4TC yields a focal length of 280mm. A good f/4L will have slightly better IQ. With the 70-200mm f/4L IS and the 1.4TC you get a wide range of focal lengths up to 280mm, but you need to compare that to a 100-300mm or 100-400mm with IS for price and performance.</p>

<p>You asked. I think that for your specified usage you'll be very happy with the 70-200mm, plus the 1.4TC. If later you try to wild birds in flight, then you may want more reach, but for the zoo you'll be very happy.</p>

[chris_houlder]

<p>Thanks David.</p>