iBookG4user
macrumors 604
Which version of the lens did you get? The mark 1's can be had for a lot cheaper than the mark 2's.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Best telephoto ranged lens for Ef(-S) mount
- Thread starter clams
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Which version of the lens did you get? The mark 1's can be had for a lot cheaper than the mark 2's.
I bought the USM II, which comes with a detachable hood. This one:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/129190-USA/Canon_2529A004AA_Telephoto_EF_200mm_f_2_8L.html
It's a very fast and sharp lens, and perhaps my favorite. With a Kenko tube it can be used for close-up photography. I did that for about a year taking photos of flowers, but now use the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, and the 200 for birds nearby and wildlife such as moose and other large animals.
Ducky waiting for food:
Depending on your low-light subject, what about using a flash? In my opinion, that is the easiest solution while retaining a good DoF and IQ. You could go with a f/2.8 and utilize the flash with good technique to stop motion, if that is what you are after. Hell, you probably could get away with a f/4.
Although I'm still a beginner when it comes to photography, I don't understand why flash photography is rarely mentioned. I can understand if the shooting conditions forbid or frown on using a flash but most times it doesn't. I got my 430exII recently and can't imagine how I would do without it now indoors. Even on my 24-105 f/4 IS, the flash is good enough to get me shots of a 5 month old. I can't imagine what a f/2.8 could do for you.
Although I'm still a beginner when it comes to photography, I don't understand why flash photography is rarely mentioned. I can understand if the shooting conditions forbid or frown on using a flash but most times it doesn't. I got my 430exII recently and can't imagine how I would do without it now indoors. Even on my 24-105 f/4 IS, the flash is good enough to get me shots of a 5 month old. I can't imagine what a f/2.8 could do for you.
Phrasikleia
macrumors 601
I'd have to disagree with that last part. At least in my experience, most of the time using flash is a problem, especially if you want to take numerous photos. People tend to find flash annoying and obtrusive. It's also not very good for candids, at least not after the first shot. I tend to use my speedlight mostly for fill flash outdoors or else for "studio"-type shots.
I shoot mainly natural light portraits but I generally would like to try to expand to different areas. Mainly sports and street photography. I don't plan on much animal or nature photography. Macro, I'm definitely interested in.
In fact, I owned the 17-85, and honestly, I discovered that I could cover much of that zoom range by moving my feet with the Sigma 30. That's why I would want a telephoto as my next lens. I've always felt there was that reach that I would really want for street photography. 2.8 would not only help DOF control for portaits but be nice for lowlight shooting which a I do a lot.
Hmm. I think that's the thing with a lot of Canon users. They simply look past the third party options and would only look at Canon L glass. Honestly, a lot of third party lenses give the best value for the dollar (although that 100mm f/2 and 200mm L is mk 1 is looking pretty good). If you look, a lot of the third party lens-makers make lenses that are almost as sharp but at the fraction of the price of Canon equivalents. And I'm not using photography as the primary means to support myself so that tiny difference isn't important enough for me to pursue.
So again, if I were to rephrase what I originally asked. I was wondering if there were any recommendations to a fast lens in the normal telephoto range that would cost 500ish max. And, I am not opposed to buying used.
Thanks in advance!
oblomow
macrumors 603
Mind you, the 200mm that is discussed above does not have IS. There is a 200mm, 2.0 that has IS, but that is way above your price limit.
Have you checked the reviews/overview on http://www.the-digital-picture.com/?
oh, and this is nice reading too: the-prime-junta.net.
JFreak
macrumors 68040
oblomow
macrumors 603
at first I thought you meant the prime-junta site. Since this is written by a finn I thought it might perhaps be you ( finland not having much inhabitants ). I checked, then I noticed you were referring to the digital picture site. getting old....
ok, first, street photography: there seems to be two camps when it comes to this. one wants to stand 50ft away and "snipe" with telephotos, the other uses wide-angle or normal lenses and get into the scene. two very different looks. you should decide what lens you want for this based on the look you want, not because you're too nervous to get in close. perspective changes with distance.
then sports: what kind of sports? your focal length requirements change with the type. indoor can be covered with a standard zoom and a 70-200. outdoor requires 400mm+ and a 70-200, or an analagous setup.
moving your feet changes the perspective of the shot. moreover, the amount you need to move changes with the size of the subject. taking a picture of a mountain requires more than a few steps when going from 17 to 85mm.
finally, when choosing prime lenses, choose based on focal length. make sure you "see" at the focal length you choose, otherwise you'll always be out of position for the composition you want.
Well I kind of narrowed it down and took what toxic had to say in mind. I'm thinking either the Tokina 100 f/2.8, 50-135 f/2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
JFreak
macrumors 68040
oblomow
macrumors 603
I know, I visited your beautiful country last july. It was your smiley that confused me.