Which tele for 800$ ?

[pierre_bize]

I'm not a fan of tele lenses and less than 10% of my pictures will be

taken above 100mm. I shoot mostly landscape, portraits and street

photography. I do a lot of trekking and mountain climbing so weight

is an issue. I would like to be able to shoot wildlife in the alps

when I encounter some and portaits of my familiy and friends. I

currently shoot with a 10D and my other lenses are Canon EF 17-40mm

f/4, EF 24 f/2.8, EF 50 f/1.8, EF 50mm f/2.5 macro.

My choices are:

Canon EF 70-200 f/4 (as an allround lens)

or

Canon 75-300 IS USM (for occasional tele photos of wildlife during my

treks)+ 85 f/1.8 (for portrait)

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

[abie_borker1]

Have you considered a used 200 f2.8? The primes will be sharper, the other great value in telphotos is the 400mm f5.6, which you can find used in your price range. Both lenses are relatively light and are going to give you sharper images than those zooms. The 400 is one of the sharpest lenses in the line.

[gerry_szarek]

Since weight is an issue, a light 200 prime (slow speed, canon) with a 2X extender would be my choice. But only because of weight! If you are willing to carry slightly more weight, I would go with the 70~200 F4 L lens with the 2X extender (you can buy this later), the 2.8 version is very expensive and not worth the one stop unless you do this for a living.

 

Now if you want to go really cheap get a generic 100 to 300 (400) zoom made by Sigma, Vivitar etc, stop it down 3 stops and it should give "reasonable" performance in the center of the lens, however don't expect the corners to be sharp (this was my choice since I didn't have the $800 for a good canon lens).

 

If you want to go really light weight and small look at a 500mm Sigma 2 mirror lens (others make this lens to), they are short and very light, however they don't take front filters, or have a iris and the center is a little soft (due to design).

 

Gerry

[dlegaspi]

oh definitely the 135/2L...but that's just me.

[melissa_eiselein]

Pierre, I swear by my 28-135 IS as an all around take-anywhere lens. But I was not happy with my 75-300 IS lens. It was quite soft at 300mm.

<p>Currently, I have an 80-200 f/2.8. I seldom use it because it's just too darn heavy. I'll probably sell it and get the 70-200 f/4--unless Canon comes out with an $800 70-300 f/2.8L IS that weighs in at 1.5 pounds. ;-)

<p>BTW...the Canon 85 f/1.8 makes for a wonderful portrait lens.

[rob de la selva]

I have a similar range of lens to you, which I am now using on a 10D

.My call would be the 70-200 f/4 (mainly cos I just bought one). I find most of my wildlife shots when hiking are at the long end of the telephoto (not enough caged animals for photographers in the backcountry), which is likely to be a bit soft on the 75-300 IS. A 70-200 f/4 and a 1.4 teleconverter will be significantly sharper wide open.

I've just performed a quick scientific comparison of the 70-200 f/4 and my old 100-300 f4.5/5.6. The 70-200 is about seven cm longer and feels a bit heavier. But hey, the 70-200 f/4 is painted a nice shade of beige. Don't know how it photographs as I haven't really used it yet, but it looks damn fine sitting here next to me as a desk ornament. :)

 

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

[allen_walker]

Among other lenses, I have the 85mm f/1.8 and the 75-300mm zoom. I am extremely happy with the 85mm, but not happy with the 75-300 -- it's soft at the longer settings. I would rather use a sharp 200mm lens and crop for the equivalent of 300mm.

 

I would go for either the 70-200 f/4 zoom or a prime 200mm f/2.8. With the prime lens, you can add a 1.4x extender and still get good results at 280mm f/4, or a 2x extender for compromised results at 400mm f/5.6. And, the prime lens is lighter and faster.

 

At any rate, be sure to include that great 85mm f/1.8 lens in your kit.

[d_l1]

70-200/4L.

 

It's no heavier or less sharp than 200/2.8L or 135/2L. At $500, I think it's a must have.

 

200/2.8L or 135/2L is definitely an option. But you said only 10% of your photos will be taken above 100, I'm not sure it's a good idea to spend that much money for that 10%.

[whayne_padden]

Pierre, seeing you have a 10D, you are already ahead of the game. A 70-200 f/4 is effectively a 112-320 and with a 1.4x TC you get a 157-448. This would cover a lot of wildlife except maybe small birds and mammals. But if you don't shoot above 100 too often then this may be the ideal combo for you. If you find you need more reach get the 100-300 f/3.5-5.6, do not get the 75-300. Or better still get a 300 f/4L. This retails for about $700-800 and is a superb lens. The IS version is another $300-400 dearer.

[yakim_peled1]

I originally thought about buying the 85/1.8 USM and 135/2 USM L but was tempted to buy the 70-200/4 USM L as everyone is so happy with it. The 135/2 USM L alone is more expensive. However, after only one month of use I sold it. I found that f/4 at 200mm is limiting when lights get low. For me, handheld ability is a must and a tripod is out of the question. Maybe a monopod (probably next month).

 

I would not buy this lens again. Not because it's bad but because for me, it's limitations (f/4 is not fast enough and it has no IS) exceeds its advantages (weight). I just bought the 85/1.8 + 200/2.8. However, as an all around lens the 70-200/4 is hard to beat. My advice, get it, use it and see how it performs for you. Do not like it ? Sell it and go for the 200/2.8 + (possibly 85/1.8 or 100/2).

But I wonder, if weight is such an issue, why do you carry the 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 primes ? The 17-40/4 can do almost everything the 24/2.8 can and the same goes for the 50/2.5. Are they so light that you don't mind them or that there are some optical advantages ?

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

 

BTW, as an owner of an L zoom and primes, do yourself a favor and avoid any other stuff.

[olivier_de_lame]

Hi,

 

From what I understand you would like a long OUTDOOR portrait lens (portrait and street photography) suitable for wildlife. I own the 135 f2, and given that you have a multiplying factor with your 10D, I think it is applicable for you. Of course 85 f1.8 or 100 f2 come also into account. One question is: do you need a large aperture? If it is the case, the zoom are out and then really I would go for the 135mm f2.

 

Regards,

 

Olivier

[pierre_bize]

Thank you every body! A few precisions: when I hike, I carry only the 17-40mm and the 50mm macro and that's all. When I climb at a higher lever I take only the 24mm f/2.8. During my hikes, I sometimes wish I had a longer lens when I encounter some wildlife. This lens should be light and does not need to be fast since there usually is plenty of light high in the alps. I borrowed the 75-300 from my girlfriend and it seemed to meet my needs...but it is dramatically soft at 300! The 85 f/1.8 would be just for familly portraits and would stay home with the 50mm f/1.8.

So after reading your posts I think the 85 f/1.8 is a must have and I think I might get one soon. The question remains of the light tele: 70-200 f/4 or 135 f/2 or xxx-300 (cheap EF canon zoom)???

Do any one think the 135mm would be a good portrait lens by itself or is it too long on the 10D? How heavy is it? Is the 100-300USM worth it or is it soft like its 75-300 brother?