Canon Telephoto Zoom... your input requested...

[AlaskaMoose]

So, I've been enjoying my recently purchased T1i and I'm going to the US at the end of the month, enabling me to buy a couple of lenses and return sans Canadian taxes.

I'm already planning to buy a refurbished 17-55 f2.8 from Adorama to replace the kit lens.

I'm also considering a long zoom. This is a lens that I will use only occasionally for hobby photography.

I've narrowed it down to these refurbished lenses at Adorama:

1. Canon EF-S 55-250 IS ($200)
2. Canon EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM ($480)
3. Canon EF 70-200 f4 L IS USM ($1000)

Comments:

I've read all the reviews by Bryan who would rate them as 3 > 2 > 1.

Given this, and my occasional need for a lens of this focal range, I feel as though the Canon EF 70-300 offers the best value for me... good construction, amazing focal range, decent image quality, mid-road price. While I would love the L lens, it would be very difficult to justify the significant added cost as an occasional use, hobby lens.

Does anyone disagree with this assessment?

Does anyone own the 70-300 IS and regret it?

Is the 70-300 IS at all useful for occasional macro work?

My choices would be:

1. Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (around $400.00)
2. EF 70-200 f/4L USM (no IS) (around $600.00 at B&H, Amazon, Adorama)
3. Then perhaps EF 300mm f/4L USM (no IS), or maybe 400mm f/5.6L USM (no IS) to keep it around $1,100.

For macro work, the 100mm f/2.8 Macro would be best, but for the occasional near macro work you could get away with the EF 50mm f/1.8, or better f/1.4, coupled to a Kenko tube.

 

[VirtualRain]

I'd like to better understand the recommendations for the 70-200 f4 L without IS...

The image is sharper... sure. And at 15 Megapixels or on 20" prints or with 100% crops, I imagine that's relevant and noticeable. But as I said, I don't view of distribute my pictures at that size. Once it's reduced down to screen res (2-3 Megapixels or less), does the added sharpness still come through better than the 70-300?

Also, in terms of IS... aren't any gains from having a wider max aperture (f4 vs say 5 or 5.6), lost because you have to use a much faster shutter speed to compensate for lack of IS? For example, if your available light dictates a 1/60th shutter at f4 (in the woods, dreary day, etc.) are you going to get a good shot without IS at 200mm? But with IS, even at f5 you probably have a much better chance of getting that shot?

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I'd like to better understand the recommendations for the 70-200 f4 L without IS...

The image is sharper... sure. And at 15 Megapixels or on 20" prints or with 100% crops, I imagine that's relevant and noticeable. But as I said, I don't view of distribute my pictures at that size. Once it's reduced down to screen res (2-3 Megapixels or less), does the added sharpness still come through better than the 70-300?

Also, in terms of IS... aren't any gains from having a wider max aperture (f4 vs say 5 or 5.6), lost because you have to use a much faster shutter speed to compensate for lack of IS? For example, if your available light dictates a 1/60th shutter at f4 (in the woods, dreary day, etc.) are you going to get a good shot without IS at 200mm? But with IS, even at 5.6 you could get a good shot at 1/30th correct?

My recommendation is simple: I paid attention to your budget for the three lenses. While the f/4L with IS would be great, it costs twice as much as the one without IS. And yes, IS gives a little more over the one without IS, but in my view not worth the added cost, and both still aren't the best low-light lenses. The EF 70-300mm IS isn't L-glass quality, and it almost costs as much as the f/4L USM without IS. The extra 100mm is good, but it cannot have the talked about IQ of the 70-200mm f/4L.

Also, in my list of lenses you will notice that one covers 17mm to 50mm, and the next covers 70-200mm. That's why I also mentioned a 300mm or a 400mm prime. There is a gap of 20mm between the first lens and the second (17-50 and 70-200), while your first and third on the list overlap each other.

 

[joelypolly]

Since you're new to this I recommend a secondhand 55-200mm. Reasoning being try taking photos with it over a month or two and see which focal ranges do you like to use. If you see yourself using the 135-200 range a lot and actually like the photos from this range then sell the 55-200 and get the 70-200mm f4L. If during this time you feel the lens is still too short for all your needs then get the 70-300mm. Or you may find yourself actually satisfied with the 55-200mm which means you have money left over for a flash.

This is why I have the 28-300mm L and 17-40mm L. One is when I am lazy and don't want to change lenses and the other because I need wide angle.

Also another thing to consider is how often will you print and how large. Most photos for web are resized so sharpness may not be as important unless you crop a lot.

 

[VirtualRain]

My recommendation is simple: I paid attention to your budget for the three lenses. While the f/4L with IS would be great, it costs twice as much as the one without IS. And yes, IS gives a little more over the one without IS, but in my view not worth the added cost, and both still aren't the best low-light lenses. The EF 70-300mm IS isn't L-glass quality, and it almost costs as much as the f/4L USM without IS. The extra 100mm is good, but it cannot have the talked about IQ of the 70-200mm f/4L.

Also, in my list of lenses you will notice that one covers 17mm to 50mm, and the next covers 70-200mm. That's why I also mentioned a 300mm or a 400mm prime. There is a gap of 20mm between the first lens and the second (17-50 and 70-200), while your first and third on the list overlap each other.

Thanks for your recommendations, but I'm not really working within a set budget... my requirements are simply to ensure I'm not throwing money at a problem I don't need to solve.

I'm committed to the 17-55 f2.8 as it will be the lens I use 95% of the time.

The other 5% of the time, I could benefit from a longer lens, hence this thread. Now, as I said, I'm not printing my pictures or selling them, so spending a lot on the sharpest lens in Canon's stable may be lost on me. I'm really trying to get a feel here for that, but it seems most people simply can't fathom shooting with anything less than L glass regardless of how the photos are ultimately utilized.

I certainly don't use a telephoto enough to justify an L prime.

I'm also confused that some people think trading IS for an extra stop of light is a good decision with a telephoto. That seems illogical to me. Without IS you lose a couple of stops, so the f4 is meaningless. If you can't get the shutter speed you need to freeze the image, that extra sharpness is also meaningless. I would still like to understand why so many folks recommend the f4 without IS

Since you're new to this I recommend a secondhand 55-200mm. Reasoning being try taking photos with it over a month or two and see which focal ranges do you like to use. If you see yourself using the 135-200 range a lot and actually like the photos from this range then sell the 55-200 and get the 70-200mm f4L. If during this time you feel the lens is still too short for all your needs then get the 70-300mm. Or you may find yourself actually satisfied with the 55-200mm which means you have money left over for a flash.

Also another thing to consider is how often will you print and how large. Most photos for web are resized so sharpness may not be as important unless you crop a lot.

I'm not sure what you mean by "new to this"? I'm not new to photography or shooting with telephoto lenses or anything. I guess you could say I'm new to Canon's current line-up of zoom lenses. But I believe my needs are fairly well understood and I had thought I had articulated them.

To re-iterate... I will only need a telephoto on occasion, but as someone wisely pointed out, perhaps a good telephoto might inspire me to shoot with it more.

I am not printing my pictures or selling them. Which makes me skeptical that the extra $500 for the 70-200 f4 L IS will be fully realized.

 

[Edge100]

I am not printing my pictures or selling them. Which makes me skeptical that the extra $500 for the 70-200 f4 L IS will be fully realized.

If that's your rationale, why buy the 17-55 f/2.8? Just get a 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS and save your money. If you don't care about the additional sharpness you get in more expensive lenses, it makes no sense to me to spend $1000 on the 17-55.

You will absolutely notice the difference in IQ with the 70-200 f/4L. The difference in contrast and wide-open sharpness will amaze you. You will not be disappointed in this lens. And if you are, just sell it for the same price you paid for it.

 

[jampat]

I'd like to better understand the recommendations for the 70-200 f4 L without IS...

The image is sharper... sure. And at 15 Megapixels or on 20" prints or with 100% crops, I imagine that's relevant and noticeable. But as I said, I don't view of distribute my pictures at that size. Once it's reduced down to screen res (2-3 Megapixels or less), does the added sharpness still come through better than the 70-300?

Also, in terms of IS... aren't any gains from having a wider max aperture (f4 vs say 5 or 5.6), lost because you have to use a much faster shutter speed to compensate for lack of IS? For example, if your available light dictates a 1/60th shutter at f4 (in the woods, dreary day, etc.) are you going to get a good shot without IS at 200mm? But with IS, even at f5 you probably have a much better chance of getting that shot?

As an example, I can tell which pictures taken at 70mm were shot with my 17-85 and which ones were shot with my 70-200 easily by looking at thumbnails. The difference in contrast is absolutely amazing and I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it myself.

What are you shooting with a telephoto lens that is sitting still long enough for you to slow down your shutter speed? Most of my shots with a telephoto are moving objects and shutter speed is everything. No amount of IS can fix a slow shutter speed if your subjects move. I can't find the canon stats, but the nikon 70-300 is max f5.3 at 200 and I suspect the Canon will be similar. That is about 2/3 stop slower than the f4 and almost 2 stops slower than your 17-55. After having shot slow glass, in that situation I would likely just leave the 17-55 on and crop to get the shot (unless you needed the extra length for compression). The bokeh will likely be better on the 17-55 anyway as at f5+ it is hard to get blurring. Also, once you get used to the fixed aperture of the 17-55, having the aperture change automatically on you (due to variable aperture) is very frustrating.

Ultimately you can buy whatever you want, but the concensus on here is pretty clear (including comments from a lot of people with a lot more experience than myself). If you really don't want to invest the money, buy the 55-250 as it is so much cheaper, but if you are willing to invest, any canon 70-200 is so much better than the other options that it is barely even worth talking about.

 

[Troglodyte]

I started out with the 55-250 and now I have the 70-200 f4L IS and the difference in optical quality is pretty obvious even to a casual observer - then again it should be for the price difference.

I got my 70-200 second hand at a good price in excellent condition. If I'd had to pay full price I'd have a hard time paying the premium for the IS version. The non-IS version is a lot cheaper, still has fantastic optics and build quality. It's the one I'd go with if cash was limited. IS is nice in low light but it doesn't stop the blur caused by using a slow shutter speed with a moving target (a child for example). The only thing that helps you there is a fast shutter speed so bump up the ISO or use a flash (or get a prime). IS doesn't magically make a slow shutter speed faster. It's still slow - you just can't see the camera shake.

If your cash is even more limited than that then the 55-250 is excellent for the money.

Incidently, I've got the 17-55 as well and it's optically a great lens (L quality IMO). It is also expensive and nowhere near an L quality build. if IQ and a wide aperture are less important to you then go for the IS kit lens or a white box 17-85 (don't pay full retail, it's not worth the money). Having had both I can say the difference in IQ between the two is not huge but the 17-85 is much nicer built (similar to the 17-55) and has a longer range.

 

[MattSepeta]

Great

the 17-55 2.8IS is pure gold.

I bought one and love love love it. Use it for landscapes, portraits, walkaround, ANYTHING. I cant imagine a lens being any nicer, save for the L build quality, sealing, movement, and such.

I also use a 70-200 f/4L as my tele, and it is almost equally awesome. In fact, for any situation requiring zooms like that, I try to bring a monopod along, eliminating the need for IS. The IS is valuable on the 17-55 for doing indoor stuff, outdoor city night shots, walkaround night shooting, etc.: Situations that probably dont require a zoom anyways.

Another Thing to think about: Weight/size.

People see my 70-200 f/4 and say WOW thats a big-ass lens.
I cant even imagine how people would react to the IS version. And its funny to think about the 2.8IS. Its gigantic.

Not worth it for the extra weight and size and money. Stick with the non-IS.

good luck with the upgrades

 

[LittleCanonKid]

Another Thing to think about: Weight/size.

People see my 70-200 f/4 and say WOW thats a big-ass lens.
I cant even imagine how people would react to the IS version. And its funny to think about the 2.8IS. Its gigantic.

The f/4 and f/4 IS are near-identical sizes, as are the f/2.8 and f/2.8 IS.

 

[funkboy]

People see my 70-200 f/4 and say WOW thats a big-ass lens.

I still remember some years ago (not long after 9/11) when I pulled my 70-200 f/4 out of my bag on the steps of the US Capitol (this was before I put gaffer tape over all the white bits). Just about every heavily-armed Capitol Police guard there was suddenly staring at me. I just smiled at them, screwed it onto my 10D, and took pictures for about 5 minutes. Nobody said a word .

 

[funkboy]

aren't any gains from having a wider max aperture (f4 vs say 5 or 5.6), lost because you have to use a much faster shutter speed to compensate for lack of IS? For example, if your available light dictates a 1/60th shutter at f4 (in the woods, dreary day, etc.) are you going to get a good shot without IS at 200mm? But with IS, even at f5 you probably have a much better chance of getting that shot?

Good question. Here's my take on all this:

- With most L lenses (and most prime lenses, L or non L) they are much sharper at maximum aperture (or very close to it, maybe only 1/3 or 2/3 stop down) than pretty much any of the non-L zooms at an equivalent aperture (although the 17-55 2.8 is basically equivalent to an L in optical quality, but it's the exception). If you want really good results from the "prosumer" USM zooms like the 70-300 or 28-135 you should close down at least a stop, and f/8-f/11 really is the optimum aperture for these guys (I've owned both).

- L lenses always have a wider maximum aperture (correct me if I'm wring but I really can't think of any exceptions to this rule) than their non-L equivalents, and they are usually constant aperture across the zoom range. The long end of the zoom is where you'll need the light the most.

- For IS lenses, the IS on the L tends to be a stop more effective than a similar non-L (e.g. 4 stops on 70-200 vs. 3 stops on 70-300, 2 stops on 28-135 vs. 3 stops on 24-105, etc.), though the IS on the new EF-S lenses looks pretty good.

The end result of all this is that an L zoom lens is going to be a couple of stops easier to get a really good handheld shot with than an equivalent non-L zoom. Primes are a different story; the optical quality of pretty much any Canon prime from 50mm on up is nothing to scoff at, but that's a different discussion.

Now, on IS vs. non-IS, for more-or-less equivalent lenses it's basically a discussion of practicality vs. cost. I travel by air a lot and dragging a tripod on trips just isn't practical, so I traded my 70-200 f/4L on a used 70-300 IS (and made about $150 on the deal . In reality this gets me about a stop or two better handholdability & it's lighter & cheaper. I like it fine between 70 & 200 and took many photos with it that I'm happy with, but I gave it to my brother for xmas this year after I found out that Adorama has refurbished 70-200 f/4L IS for a grand <grin>.

I also own the 135mm f/2L. On my 40D shutter speed needs to stay above at least 250 or 300 to get a really clean handheld shot, but at f/2.2 that's not usually a problem. Also bear in mind that IS is a great tripod substitute but if you're shooting moving subjects in low light only a wider aperture & higher shutter speeds will freeze your subject. I'd sell the farm for a 135mm f/2L IS.

My 1.4x teleconverter also works on both the 135 & the 70-200, so it was definitely a good investment.

BTW, One thing that seemed to be a pretty clear consensus when the 70-300 DO IS came out is that the new 70-300 USM was good enough that it pretty much made the existence of the DO version moot. The DO is better (especially at the long end), but nowhere near double-the-price better. The 70-200 f/4L IS is about the same money and optically it's hard to do better at any price.

 

[-hh]

If I were you, I would avoid the 70-300. The images produced by Canon's 70-200's really are that much better than all of the cheaper options...

I have the 75-300 IS, which is the prior, "less improved" version of the 70-300. For Sale ... make offer.

I've had a 70-200 f/2.8 IS now for 2-3? years. Wonderful lens. If I knew now what I did "way back when", with the budget that I had when I got the 75-300, I would have held out for the 70-200 f/4.


-hh

 

[Phrasikleia]

The OP asked in a PM if I could add my opinion to the thread, so here I am. I just read both pages and am not sure I can add anything that hasn't already been said, but I can at least opine.

The benefits of the non-L lenses are affordability and convenience. They are cheaper, lighter, and have greater ranges. The question is whether or not the extra $500-800 is worth it to get an L lens and the extra image quality that would come with it. It's difficult to put a price on image quality, since it's not easily quantifiable, but I think we can all agree that the better contrast and color rendition of an L lens is quite noticeable in a picture of any size. Consumer lenses tend to produce more dull images, causing them to the lack vibrancy and tonality of a great lens. Some of that loss can be recovered with careful post-processing, if you're inclined to pursue it. Cheaper lenses will also have worse distortion and vignetting--again correctable to some extent, if you don't mind doing a bit of cropping and tweaking in post (and sometimes vignetting is desirable). Then there are issues of flare and chromatic aberration; only the latter can really be corrected in post, and then only if it's the "right" kind of CA. How much those differences are worth is a personal question that only the OP can answer.

As for sharpness: if the OP really will never need to crop much, print large, or sell anything, then the extra sharpness of an L lens won't make a big difference. If he's only ever going to post 800x600 images online, then any of these three lenses is probably going to be sharp enough. Good technique will be his only limiting factor as far as sharpness goes.

The one question that nobody can answer is what the future will hold for the OP and this hobby of his. So here's where things get a little philosophical. I definitely agree with whoever said that once you get a great lens, you'll find reasons to shoot with it. The incredible image quality of a good L lens is intoxicating and will make you seek out appropriate subjects for it. On the other hand, if you have really basic gear and are really driven to do great things with it, then you will do great things with it. No hobbyist who is merely posting small online images really needs the image quality of an L lens. But few passionate hobbyists ever remain at that level--that's the catch. Most people who really get the photography bug do end up printing large photos and even selling some of their work. If you really can't ever see yourself being one of those people, then save yourself some money. Otherwise, get the lens you know will give you the most room to grow.

 

[toxic]

- For IS lenses, the IS on the L tends to be a stop more effective than a similar non-L (e.g. 4 stops on 70-200 vs. 3 stops on 70-300, 2 stops on 28-135 vs. 3 stops on 24-105, etc.), though the IS on the new EF-S lenses looks pretty good.

there is no relationship between IS on "L" lenses and consumer lenses. Canon sticks the latest IS available into the lenses it releases. other than that, valid points, though the f/8-11 thing is true for every lens...more expensive lenses are just much better wide-open.

 

[funkboy]

there is no relationship between IS on "L" lenses and consumer lenses.

Not inherently, no, but things seem to have worked out that way as a result of the order in which things were released.

Actually, if you dig through Canon's technical docs, you'll find that on newer lenses there's a new 3-stop "spring" based system on the consumer lenses, and the 3+1 stop system on lenses like the new 70-200 Ls use gyros & servos like Canon IS always has.

Other than that, valid points, though the f/8-11 thing is true for every lens...more expensive lenses are just much better wide-open.

Honestly, on my 135L I can't really see a difference in sharpness at all the stops between f/4 and f/11, even at the pixel peeper level (other than the depth of field being much greater of course). I use it between f/2.2 and f/2.8 most of the time unless I need more DoF, and the results are amazing.

 

[VirtualRain]

Thank you very much for all the input.

Although the 55-250 is a good value, it's toy-like build quality is a turn-off for me and so I've disqualified it on that alone.

The 70-200 f4 L IS is clearly the best choice for uncompromising image quality for a premium price. The down side, at least for me, is the weight and size, and where this lens sits on the diminishing returns curve when considering my current emphasis on wider angles. If I was planning a trip to Africa, I wouldn't hesitate to get this lens.

That leaves the 70-300... Reviewers, and those that have owned it or still do, seem to regard it's optical quality as only a slight notch below the L in the 70-200mm range. On a crop body such as mine, the distortion and corner sharpness is less of a concern. At 200 it's only 2/3rds a stop slower than the L. It's more compact and likely to live in my bag all the time. It's black. It's at a price point that I don't need to agonize over, and it has IS which will give me a much better chance of catching a sharp shot with it. While it's not likely the last telephoto I will ever buy, I think it's the best choice for my needs now... especially since I'm also spending a large chunk of money on the 17-55 f2.8 which will be my primary lens and where I've opted not to compromise.

Ultimately, it would be ideal (for me and probably many other crop body owners) if Canon created a fast f4 70-200 or 70-300 IS lens in EF-S format with USM that would make it more compact.

 

[toxic]

Ultimately, it would be ideal (for me and probably many other crop body owners) if Canon created a fast f4 70-200 or 70-300 IS lens in EF-S format with USM that would make it more compact.

not happening. you get diminishing returns in size when you get to the telephoto range - the size of the front element (which is determined in part by the size of the diaphragm) determines the size of the lens, so telephotos need bigger elements anyway. in short, the weight loss for a smaller sensor is minimal.

if you look around, you might find a used Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 (discontinued) or a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8

 

[VirtualRain]

not happening. you get diminishing returns in size when you get to the telephoto range - the size of the front element (which is determined in part by the size of the diaphragm) determines the size of the lens, so telephotos need bigger elements anyway. in short, the weight loss for a smaller sensor is minimal.

if you look around, you might find a used Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 (discontinued) or a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8

I guess that would explain why there aren't any EF-S USM telephoto lenses.

 

[tdmac]

I have the 75-300 IS, which is the prior, "less improved" version of the 70-300. For Sale ... make offer.

I've had a 70-200 f/2.8 IS now for 2-3? years. Wonderful lens. If I knew now what I did "way back when", with the budget that I had when I got the 75-300, I would have held out for the 70-200 f/4.


-hh

But would you give up your current 70-200 f2.8 IS that you got a couple of years ago and had the 70-200 f/4?