Looking for a zoom lens

[willscarlett]

<p>The lens I currently have for my 5D is the 24-105 L series. It's a beautiful lens, but I could really use something longer. What do people suggest? I have looked around a bit to see what's out there, but I'd like to hear peoples' opinions. No problem if people have a lot of different suggestions!</p>

<p>Of course, the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II would be nice, or even version 1, if there are any still out there. The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS is appealing as well. How does each lens perform wide open? I really like the 70-200, due to it's wide aperture of f/2.8, as I'd really like some soft backgrounds. Does anyone know if the 70-200 performs as well wide open as the Nikon version does?</p>

<p>Of course, obvious downsides of the 70-200 II are its cost and weight! I welcome any suggestions, as there are a plethora of zooms to choose from... different versions of the 70-200 at f/2.8, f/4... 100-400, 70-300 in DO and non-DO versions.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[jesse_barba]

<p>I would go with the 70-200 f/4 IS. It is very sharp, and unless you absolutely need the speed of the 2.8 I find the weight to be a considerable advantage (oh, and the price).</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>+1 to what Jesse says.</p>

<p>The 70-200/4 L IS is my favourite EF zoom, and my most used walkabout lens. I briefly considered acquiring the 70-200/2.8 L IS II when it came out, but "rejected" it because of its greater bulk, weight, and cost.</p>

<p>By the way, the 70-200/4 L IS is a superb outdoor portrait lens, and has very pleasing bokeh, by far the best I've seen from a "slower" zoom.</p>

[chip_degrace]

<p>I own the 70-300, the 70-200 2.8L IS, and used to own the 70-200 f/4L. The 70-300 works well for soccer with it's reach, and when light is plentiful. Owned the 70-200 f/4L, and it is smaller and lighter than the 2.8, but couldn't accept the loss of a stop for indoor sports. Loss of bokeh could also be important if you are a more artistic, or portrait, photog. The 2.8L IS, first gen, which I have, should be easy to find as many of us are upgrading to the mkII version. Spend the money, buy the 2.8L IS, otherwise.....every time you shoot, you'll wonder how much better the pics would have been....if you had it.</p>

[willscarlett]

<p>Yeah, that's what I wonder about... if I don't buy the 2.8L IS, will I wish that I had after using something else? Of course, it is quite expensive, which is why I was asking about other options. If I were to not get the 2.8L IS, would the 70-200 f/4 IS be my next best bet? I've been spoiled by the IS on the 24-105 and would like to continue having lenses with IS.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>John-Paul, after looking at your excellent portfolio, I'm torn as to whether to recommend the 70-200mm f/4 or f/2.8. I've got the f/4L IS and love it, using it with both a 5D2 and a 7D body, with and without the 1.4x TC. The bokeh is great on the f/4 and with the 5D2's stellar high-ISO performance I don't find myself longing for one more f-stop. The compactness, light weight, IS and superb IQ are things that will be very attractive to you. It's a super portrait lens and great for macros with a 25mm ET and/or the 1.4x TC.</p>

<p>However, given your deep artistic streak, you may want to do a lot of shallow DOF work and more bokeh work than the average dude. I think that you should really look at the bokeh in some sample shots by Searching pixel-peeper.com and Flickr.com for both the f/4 and f/2.8 to see what you think of the comparative bokeh. Other than that, I could see you shooting most of what I see in your portfolio with the f/4L IS, which is an absolutely wonderful lens.</p>

[chip_degrace]

<p>David, excellent response. <br>

Even if I had your 5d (someday, currently 7d), I still find the 2.8 very helpful in indoor sports, allowing me to blur out the distracting crowds.<br>

Can't go wrong with 4L or 2.8L in that lens.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Chip, yeah, agreed that for indoor sports and certain types of concert shooting the f/2.8 can be really handy. Our OP has the 5D and looking at his portfolio I saw very few images that required fast SS or a large aperture. However, he is very artistic and might find the potentially shallower DOF and slightly different bokeh of the f/2.8 preferable. Both have high quality bokeh, but it's a matter of taste and willingness to lug "the brick" around that'll likely color his final decision.</p>

<p>J-P, let us know when you make up your mind. ;-)</p>

[willscarlett]

<p>Thank you to everyone for the replies so far!</p>

<p>To Chip and David, I will certainly let you know when I make up my mind. Thank you for the pixel peeper suggestion as well. In general, I like shooting my 24-105 at f/5.6. It's sharp at f/4, but just slightly more pleasing at f/5.6.</p>

<p>Thank you for the "excellent portfolio" comments as well :)</p>

<p>If anyone has any experience with the 70-300 DO lens as well, I'd be interested to hear. However, I'm not a huge fan of those lenses where the maximum aperture varies depending on the focal length.</p>

[willscarlett]

<p>David, I was wondering which images you saw that had an artistic streak, in terms of whether they were shot digitally or on film. In terms of bokeh for shooting with my 5D, I frequently use an adapter to attach a Nikon Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 to my 5D. It's wonderfully sharp at f/5.6 and creates beautifully blurred backgrounds. I was also in that ABC furniture store in NYC's Union Square over the weekend and was taking random shots in there. Shooting close to minimum focusing distance, at f/5.6 and using the lens at 105mm, the background blurring is beautiful. Perhaps I'll post a shot or two when I get home tonight.</p>

<p>If it was on film, I have a full compliment of lenses for my Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Minolta SLR's, most of which sit around collecting dust. The Nikon lenses get the most use. I also have a Bronica ETR. The 75mm lens gives beautiful backgrounds for portraits at f/5.6 or f/4. The lens still works well at f/2.8, but I prefer to keep it stopped down at least one stop.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I was looking at both film and digital J-P. Your site was mostly film, but I found some digital stuff with the Canon.</p>

<p>I was wondering which processor you're using for your digital RAW conversion. I see good results with the 24-105mm f/4L IS, but I also know that it's sharpness (pre-processing) is not up to some of your other lenses.</p>

<p>I've been doing my RAW conversion and processing with DxO's Optics Pro 6.5.1, which adjusts for chromatic aberration, geometric distortion, vignetting, etc. at every focal length and every aperture, bring that particular zoom up to an incredible level of IQ. Without good processing, my 24-105mm is decidedly average. Here's an image taken in New Orleans at ISO 6400, f/4, 24mm and 1/160th second, using the 24-105mm. I used DxO's "High ISO" preset and a little touch up of brightness and contrast:</p>

<p><a title="Anyone for absinthe? by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4083/5190792043_85e2c6f940_b.jpg" alt="Anyone for absinthe?" width="683" height="1024" /></a></p>

<p>Here it is at 100%, if you really want to pixel-peep.<br>

<a href="

The equipment is good, but the processing really brings it to a whole new level.</p>

[willscarlett]

<p>David, I actually don't do a whole lot of post-processing for images that I put on my photoblog. If I'm having a print made from a RAW file, then I will process it, generally using Photoshop and some plug-ins, but sometimes some Lightroom work as well.</p>

<p>If it's a film print, then there's not much you can do beforehand, other than making sure your negative is dust and scratch free.</p>

<p>I'll look into the DxO program you mentioned as well. Thanks!</p>

[dcstep]

<p>J-P, I'm really talking about RAW conversion and global adjustments, using programs like DxO and Lightroom. You probably know this, but don't shoot digital like you would slide film. The in-camera image should be "exposed to the right" of the histogram, such that it'll look over exposed if the brighness level is not pulled down in RAW conversion. Anything below the level that blows out the highlights will result in higher dynamic range, better shadow detail and lower noise. The perfect exposure for velvia leave a ton of digital dynamic range on the table.</p>

<p>Many people assume that their film settings will be fine for digital. That may be correct of in-camera jpegs, but for the best potential quality you want to "expose right", shoot in RAW and convert to jpeg or tif using a competent program. The best RAW conversion programs work in batch mode so that you don't have to spend a ton of time on each image.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Since you already have an all purpose lens in the 24-105/4 L IS you might consider a specialty telephoto only, like the 200/2.8 L. Sharpness, contrast, colour rendition and bokeh will all be improved over the 70-200/2.8 II for about 1/3 the price. In scenarios where you might miss 70-105 and/or IS you have your 24-105 to fall back on.</p>

<p>I don't see any images in your portfolio where you actually need IS so you may be overestimating how much it really affects your images.</p>

<p>If you really want to experiment with limited depth of field and superior bokeh you could get a used 85/1.2 L and used 200/2.8 L for the price of the big new zoom. </p>