canon 200mm f/2.8 .. - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/07/2008 11:14:08 AM · #1

i've finally ready to buy a good L glass...
i want something to shoot wild birds and hawks with ..
is this too short ..
does the 1.4x teleconverter reduce the sharpness much ?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/07/2008 11:14:51 AM · #2

from the data I've seen, only mildly on the sharpness.

It may be slightly on the short side, although a crop lens will help some.

Message edited by author 2008-01-07 11:15:23.

Falc

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

01/07/2008 11:17:49 AM · #3

I'd say its too short even with the 1.4x

I have the 100-400 and its still short. I put the 2x converter on and the reach is OK (not good), but the speed then really suffers. I's say minimum 400mm for wild birds, but 500 would be better with the 1.4 or 2x converter.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/07/2008 11:18:50 AM · #4

On a 350D you get an equivalent of 320mm, unless you are shooting big birds that's a little bit short. I'd say 400mm is the minimum for bird shooting.
This bird was shot with my 500mm on the 1D II from 10ft away, uncropped shot.

Message edited by author 2008-01-07 11:24:53.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/07/2008 11:22:37 AM · #5

It'll be too short even with the 1.4 converter (my opinion, of course)

I own this lens, and absolutely love it ... but you'd have to be a ninja to get close enough to a hawk. I just got the 2x converter for christmas, and it's a big help, but I still think it's going to be tough. I was out this weekend looking for red tailed hawks (there's tons around me). Finding them was easy, photographing them was not.

I have photos at home, but I'm at work at the moment.

Here's a shot using the 2x converter with monopod. Image quality is degraded, but with proper long lens technique, I think professional quality (publishable quality) can be achieved.

Originally posted by rami:

i've finally ready to buy a good L glass...
i want something to shoot wild birds and hawks with ..
is this too short ..
does the 1.4x teleconverter reduce the sharpness much ?

Quasimojo

Canon EOS-30D

01/07/2008 11:24:48 AM · #6

I have the 100-400 f4 that I have used a couple of times with the 2x converter - I found image quality degraded and not anywhere near as sharp as I'd have liked. Still not sure if it was me (e.g. no mirror lockup) or the lens/extender.

EDIT: It's a great lens without the extender on it though. In bright sunlight I've managed to get some nice bird shots with it (all unedited):

Bird 1
Bird 2
Bird 3
Bird 4
Bird 5

If you live somewhere miserable like the UK the faster glass is probably a good move if you can afford it - for most shots of mine in the UK it stays mounted on a sturdy tripod which has its limits.

N

Message edited by author 2008-01-07 11:31:52.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/07/2008 11:25:54 AM · #7

Originally posted by fastforward:

Converters, especially 2x ones, work best on fast primes. Quality degrades quite a bit on zooms.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

01/07/2008 11:28:39 AM · #8

hopper, is that shot taken with the 200 + 2x ??
looks pretty sharp to me...
well i can't afford a long lens at the moment.. and i was thinking that the 200mm will be useful in street photography and portraits ..
its either that..or wait a while and get a longer fully dediated lens...

Message edited by author 2008-01-07 11:30:38.

Falc

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

01/07/2008 11:39:13 AM · #9

Originally posted by rami:

just don't buy it if what you really want is to do bird photography, you would be making the wait for 'long' glass even longer.

01/07/2008 11:42:14 AM · #10

not really.. what i want is an L sharp tele wich could be usable in street and portraits.. and also suitable for bird photography..

01/07/2008 11:46:01 AM · #11

yes ... i was a bit surprised too :)

I've been able to get some very sharp images ... crappy subjects so far, but sharp images

It's a given that your "great image" ratio is going to drop using an extender and a lower end camera body. I've ready many articles from nature photographers that use the 400mm thru 600mm range .. they all say the same thing ... it isn't easy, and many photographers give up.

Originally posted by rami:

hopper, is that shot taken with the 200 + 2x ??
looks pretty sharp to me...

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM

01/07/2008 11:48:32 AM · #12

I agree with this. I use my 200 for nature close-ups (butterflies and whatnot) more than for birding. So for me, $1000 for a longer lens doesn't make too much sense. I knew the risk when I asked for the extender.

Originally posted by Falc:

just don't buy it if what you really want is to do bird photography, you would be making the wait for 'long' glass even longer.

Chinarosepetal

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III

01/07/2008 11:57:32 AM · #13

I use my 200mm for birds, the tamer garden sort
This with the 200mm (uncropped)

And this with 200mm plus 2X convertor (again uncropped)

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM

01/07/2008 02:45:52 PM · #14

chinarosepeta, gotta say with 2x that looks very good considering a crop...
can you email me the full uncropped straigt from the camera shot ? if possible of course.. i will pm u my email
and hopper too if you please :) ...

Chinarosepetal

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III

01/07/2008 02:54:18 PM · #15

Originally posted by rami:

No problem Rami :)

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

01/07/2008 03:05:30 PM · #16

sure ... it's a RAW file, but I'll sent it to you

pm me your e-mail

Originally posted by rami:

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

01/07/2008 03:15:26 PM · #17

I can't speak for image quality on the 200 f/2.8 with extenders but for reach you will be wanting more. I have the 100-400 and I keep telling myself that I wish my lens were longer. I will be getting an 1.4 for it soon. Here are a few pics I took yesterday with the 100-400, all have some form of cropping to get a bit closer, some more than others and all were taken at the 400mm. If you plan on nature photography I really can't recommend the lens enough as it is sharp and the IS lets me handhold it at as low as 1/300 sec or slower w/ my monopod. I own the 70-200 f/4 and it just wasn't enough reach for me. Good luck!

LoudDog

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/07/2008 03:18:08 PM · #18

Too short for birds, unless you are shooting pigions and sea gulls.

Buying a lens with the intention of using a teleconverter is not a good idea. Just buy the right length right off the bat. Does a 400mm F4 cost that much more then a 200mm F2.8 plus 1.4x teleconverter?

Bernard_Marx

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/07/2008 03:23:17 PM · #19

I use 300mm and find it short. I manage some nice shots when I get lucky, but don't get lucky as often as I would like. I would LOVE to own the Canon EF 400mm EF f/4 DO IS USM for bird hunting. It isn't L but is very sharp and being a prime, works well with the extenders.

LoudDog

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/07/2008 03:35:27 PM · #20

I still have the images up...

I did a test awhile back. Sigma 70-300 vs Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS vs Canon 100-400 L IS using a 1.4x teleconverter (Kenko Pro â�� supposedly as good as the Canon) and a 2x teleconverter (cheapy Tamron). I canâ��t recall what aperture was used, but they are all taken at the same aperture when compared head to head. Shots were off a tripod in poor lighting shot in aperture priority so shutter speed may vary (yes I know what mistakes I made).

The images are 100% crops from upper left corner, center, and lower right corner, left to right.

All three at 200mm
//img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/Louddog/200mm.jpg

all three at 280mm (70-200 with 1.4x teleconverter)
//img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/Louddog/280.jpg

70-200 with 2x teleconverter and 100-400 both at 400mm
//img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/Louddog/400.jpg

01/08/2008 03:16:06 AM · #21

trevytrev, those are really good btw..
loaddog, you have a point.. but from my humble experience, primes are just unbeatable when it comes to quality..
200 seems like a tight but a nice focal length for me... specially if i use the extender..
so yes i can go and buy a 400mm for the same price.. but i will have to carry arround this heavy thing all around..
plus its white.. and i hate that kinda attention..
the 200 is compact and light weight and from the reviewes extreemly sharp.
i've looked at 100% crops of picture taken with 200mm +2x (hopper was kind enoough to send).. and they are reasonably very good .. they weren't even stopped down...
so i guess with a 1.4x or even a 2x one can get good pictures and crop them..
i guess i'm inclining more now towards the 200mm + extenders...
but many thanks everyone... you were really helpfull..
wish me luck