| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/11/2006 07:02:50 PM · #1 |
| I am contemplating adding to my rather small arsenal of lenses and wanted a telephoto zoom lense for my EOS-1 mark II camera any ideas. P.s. does not have to be canon lenses just a inight in to what is good. Thanks. |
|
|
|
02/11/2006 07:07:20 PM · #2 |
Oh boy, can you get a more open-ended question?! :o) So I'll return with two questions - what kinda range do you need, and how fast do you need? Your choices range from the 24-105/4, thru the 70-200s, to the 100-400/4-5.6, all of which are very capable lenses, but meet very different requirements...
|
|
|
|
02/11/2006 07:09:21 PM · #3 |
The "benchmark" telephoto zoom is the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS; the Canon 70-200mm f/4L is optically its equal at a significantly lower price.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2006 07:19:29 PM · #4 |
The Canon EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS is an interesting lens as well. Depends on your needs, but could be an option.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2006 07:21:19 PM · #5 |
| I am looking for a lense for two things one wild life and secondly candid shots so as for the speed i guess i need a fast lense but not to sure. The range, in my eyes is the further it goes the better? is this true? |
|
|
|
02/11/2006 07:26:17 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Agcowie:
I am looking for a lense for two things one wild life and secondly candid shots so as for the speed i guess i need a fast lense but not to sure. The range, in my eyes is the further it goes the better? is this true? |
Not really; the more extreme the range of zoom, the more compromises must be made optically. The rule of thumb is, if a zoom exceeds 3x it must sacrifice at one end or the other. If wildlife is your primary interest, 200mm is not sufficient reach, and the Canon 100-400mm zoom is a serious candidate, but it is very expensive ($1200+).
R.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2006 07:29:37 PM · #7 |
If you're not tied to Canon L glass, there's always the Sigma 50-500/4-6.3 (AKA the Bigma) ;o)
|
|
|
|
02/11/2006 07:32:19 PM · #8 |
| not tied down to any thing so sigma and any other make sugestions are cool. thanks for the suggestions so far : ) |
|
|
|
02/11/2006 07:46:24 PM · #9 |
Sigma 50-500 has a good reputation. Sigma 120-300 is fast at a constant f2.8, but it's pricey. Canon's 100-400 is a push-pull zoom, and some people find that a negative. I use a Tamron 200-500 a lot for wildlife shooting but it's not fast aperture or fast focusing. In a 70-200, I have a Sigma which I think is equal, or nearly equal, to the Canon L as far as image quality is concerned; and it works well with my Sigma 2x teleconverter when the light is good.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:38:13 AM · #10 |
There really is no fast (f2.8 or less) wildlife lens (greater than 300mm).
If you want a fast telephoto zoom, the a 70-200 f2.8 from Canon or a Sigma would be a good choice.
Generally, if you want to do wildlife, I think you need atleast 300mm or more. Some options are Canon 100-400L IS, Sigma 50-500, Sigma 80-400OS, Tamron 200-500.
Another option is to get a fast 70-200mm with a 2X TC, which would make it a 400mm f5.6 (I think that two stops). But if your mainly doing wildlife, you should consider a super telephoto instead.
Another option is a Sigma 100-300 (not really fast or long) or a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 (over $2000 and maybe too short, but it's sharp and fast).
You can also consider super telephoto primes, but they are several thousand dollars and not very practical.
Photozone.de has tested all of these lenses so you may want to look there. My recommendation is to consider the Sigma 50-500 if you want the most range and value, the Canon 100-400L IS if handholding/shake reduction is important to you, or a Tamron 200-500 if you don't need the shorter end and want to spend the least. According to photozone, they all rate right around very good in terms of sharpness.
Good luck
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:49:30 AM · #11 |
| Thanks alot guys now need to check the bank balance and then see where i can go from there but great advice all around. I am a new member and this site is great!!? loving it so far. Thanks : ) |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:59:50 AM · #12 |
| one final question is that ifi bought a lense out side of the canon range, such as the Sigma 50-500 do i need to buy a extra converter for my canon or is it as simple as sticking the lense on and off i go? |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 06:26:11 AM · #13 |
| 24 - 105 IS and the 100 - 400 are my two most used lenses both excellent. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 09:14:17 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Agcowie:
one final question is that ifi bought a lense out side of the canon range, such as the Sigma 50-500 do i need to buy a extra converter for my canon or is it as simple as sticking the lense on and off i go? |
All third party lenses come in a mount for other cameras like Canon and Nikon. The only thing that might be an issue (and only with older lenses) is a communication issue between the lens and the camera. This requires the lens to be rechipped. Third party lenses reverse engineer in order to be compatible so any changes on the part of Canon/Nikon may cause the lens to be incompatible, hence the need for rechipping.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 09:14:37. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:14:00 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Agcowie:
one final question is that ifi bought a lense out side of the canon range, such as the Sigma 50-500 do i need to buy a extra converter for my canon or is it as simple as sticking the lense on and off i go? |
The mounts are all the same (EF) so there is no difference. The older Sigmas had a problem with new Canon dslr's but I've not seen it with the Reble 300D, 350D, 1D Mark IIN, and the 20D with lenses currently in production or one generation before (pre DG coated lens era from Sigma).
Here is a shot of a lion with my Sigma 50-500, aka "Bigma"
//yido.smugmug.com/gallery/575260/1/51896407/Large
//yido.smugmug.com/gallery/575260/1/51896400/Large
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:25:20 PM · #16 |
| the problem with the Canon 100-400L f5.6 IS is a lot of wildlife shots are taken early morning and late afternoon. Low lighting and with the f5.6 sometimes I feel the lens is to slow. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:27:04 PM · #17 |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:38:49 PM · #18 |
I'm not a Canon guy but my advice would be to stay away from the Sigma 50-500. There are just to many compromises with that much zoom. Try to stay in the 3x rule if possible. Lokking at your current lenses it would just add duplication anyway.
The best combo for wildlife, if money is not an object, would be a fast 70-200 and a long prime of at least 400mm and F4. If money is an object then the second best would be the 70-200 F4 and the Tamron 200-500.
IMHO of course.
edit: BTW yido those are great shots with the Bigma. But I still think he needs to remember that they are static shots and in good light. Getting out in the field early and late in the day with a big lens on moving targets gets a bit tougher. I will say that the Tamron 200-500 suffers from the same issues but I just think the zoom range is more reasonable and it is a bit lighter.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 16:02:26. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:41:35 PM · #19 |
| oh also sigma's 100-300/2.8 is supposed to be fantastic. You can use it with a 1.4x teleconverter and get about a 365mm reach at F4 (it's not really 300mm that's why it's not 420mm) |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:44:45 PM · #20 |
The best combination I've managed to come up with for the stated purpose was the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) with A Canon EF 1.4x: a reasonable range for most wildlife including large birds, excellent contrast and razer-sharp throughout 95% of focal total focal length.
I've also repeatedly tried ellamay's Canon EF 100-400mm L IS with good results (do not use a coverter with it), although I found the IS less reliable in the long run (error messages, several repairs two three lenses).
The 70-200mm f/2.8L is the best piece of glass I've ever come across.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:49:18 PM · #21 |
5.6 lbs $2000 Sigma 120- 300 F2.8 is great lens for the buck.
Greenfinch |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:54:07 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
5.6 lbs $2000 Sigma 120- 300 F2.8 is great lens for the buck.
Greenfinch |
yeah that's the one i meant in my last post... not 100-300 which is an F4 lens, my bad. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:01:33 PM · #23 |
I'm thinking about the Canon 24 - 70 f/2.8L for music and indoor stuff. Only wish it had IS too. edit* I realize it's a standard zoom.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 16:04:22.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:07:47 PM · #24 |
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L with Canon EF 1.4x:
    
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:13:24 PM · #25 |
That's without the IS right? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/29/2025 10:11:26 AM EST.
