handheld zoom telephoto??

[photobob]

Hi everyone

I am looking around for a reasonable quality telephoto zoom (at least 300mm at the long end) and there are times when it is just impossible for me to carry a tripod (long walks, limited space etc etc).

So I was just wondering if anyone had any advice on possible choices that could fit this bill (and give me at least some chance of catching good zoomed shots when I don't have my tripod - working on the theory that the only other option I've got is to leave the camera at home as well (and "every shot not taken is missed" (Wayne Gretsky I think))?

Happy to consider anything that is suggested!

Many thanks

BOB

[Digital Prophet]

Bob I think that you are looking for will be Canon's line of Image Stabilization (IS) lenses. Alot of the shooters here have them and I would love to own one. But everything that I am reading says that it would fit right on the plate for what you need. But be warned, those lenses get kind of pricey.

Another option is a monopod. Not terribly convenient but you could use it as a walking stick and strap the camera around the neck when its not in use. Heck for that matter you could take any walking stick (decorative of course) that is a good height and tap the correct threaded mount and use it as a monopod. Hey I like that idea. No one steal that one, it's mine!

Just some thoughts.

- Digital Prophet -

[msvadi]

if you think about it, there are not that many options. tell us how much you can spend, we will tell you what to buy ;)

[aam1234]

Does anybody know if 75-300 IS USM any good. Read somewhere that it's kindda bad.

[CyberDyneSystems]

There aren't a lot of quality options... :(

The Canon 75/100- 300mm lenses are all pretty "poopy"..

I guess the best is the 75-300mm IS.. for about $450.00 if I am not mistaken.


The best "deal" in this range is the amazing Sigma 100-300mm f/4.. but it costs a bit more and weighs a bit more.

And of course there is the new Canon that is ridiculously overpriced.. the 70-300mm "DO" IS...

If you want quality.. I'd look at either the afore mentioned Sigma 100-300mm f/4

OR

The Canon 70-200mm f/4 L @ $550.00

Although it only goes to 200mm it IS a candidate for the 1.4X T-con which will offer 280mm and it will be a lot better quality than any fo the Canon 300mm zooms.


p.s. the Sigma can be used with a 1.4X T-con as well offering a sharp and quick focusing 140-420mm f/5.6 zoom! Not bad!

[mttmrphy]

I have the 75-300 IS and have no complaints. Its great for walking around.

You can see samples from baseball games on my website
www.fotomatt.net
All action shots are with the 75-300 IS

I recently bought the sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 but I would use the 75-300 IS for walking around.

[blackviolet]

... (and "every shot not taken is missed" (Wayne Gretsky I think))?

yes, it was Wayne Gretzky. his original quote was 100% of the shots you don't take, don't go in but it is often misquoted. :lol: here we are - two australians discussing ice hockey :lol:

fwiw i shoot a lot of kid's sport (that other footy) using my Bigma. i hand hold it a lot and with the aperature wide open or down ~2 stops is pretty sharp on a sunny day. i have it on a monopod quite a bit as well but i'm moving up and down the field quite a bit. what i've also found is simply having the monopod dangling, it acts as a pretty good damper. keeping my elbows in helps a lot too. i chock it all up to experience and lots of practice.

i'm sure, once you get some decent glass, you'll get better with it over time. good luck and happy shooting.

oh, and by the way... go bombers!!!! :P

[msvadi]

The Canon 75/100- 300mm lenses are all pretty "poopy"..
I guess the best is the 75-300mm IS.. for about $450.00 if I am not mistaken.


The funny thing is that the IS version of 75-300 is rated lower than non IS by photodo.com . It performs worse at the shorter end of their focal length according to their MTFs. I'm not sure if the difference of 0.02-0.04 (in terms of average MTFs) is something one would see in real life shots.

I borrowed the non-IS 75-300 from a friend for a few shots. I know it's being critisized a lot. And, obviously, it cannot stand comparison to the L glass. But it is capable of producing decent pictures, in terms of sharpness, even at 300mm. I can post an example later. However, purple fringing can be very-very bad.

I know that the poster looks for a zoom with 300mm reach. However, in my opinion the 200mm 2.8L prime is the best deal for the money ($600) if one wants telephoto and low light capability. I'm seriously thinking about it myself. I'm still trying to find 100-300 5.6L for about $300, but if it does not work, then I'll get 200 2.8L.

[aam1234]

Hi,

Would any canon EF work with 1.4/2.0 TC. Also, i heard that autofocus doesn't work with TC's, is that true.

Thanks

[AmericaWestCMH]

You could always try the 70-200 f/4L with a 1.4x converter. AF is still retained. I use this combo am I'm fairly happy with it.

[Kinger]

Well here is an example of the non IS 75-300 lens at 300, but I have to admit there was great light.

http://home.comcast.net/~king247/images/IMG_0312.jpg

and just to show how far away I was:

http://home.comcast.net/~king247/images/IMG_0240.jpg

if you want to look, the majority of the shots in the link were done with that lens.

http://home.comcast.net/~king247/

[msvadi]

Kinger, thanks for posting the examples. However, they are too small to say anything about the lens. We judge lenses here by 100% crops ;)

[aam1234]

You could always try the 70-200 f/4L with a 1.4x converter

How do you find the shake on that combo, do you us a tripode with them.

Correct me if i'm wrong, the above gives you 448mm with the 300D's cropping factor (200 * 1.6 * 1.4 = 448 mm).

[AmericaWestCMH]

I don't have much problem with shake if I use a high enough shutter. Low-light situations though I would use a tripod.

I still have A LOT to learn, so take my examples with a grain of salt.

Handheld:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=269857
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=280666[/url]

[Andy_T]

You could always try the 70-200 f/4L with a 1.4x converter

How do you find the shake on that combo, do you us a tripode with them.

Correct me if i'm wrong, the above gives you 448mm with the 300D's cropping factor (200 * 1.6 * 1.4 = 448 mm).

'Normal' Canon EOS cameras (all but the professional '1' series) check for a minimum (maximum? -> lowest f/number :lol: ) aperture of f/5.6 if a teleconverter is detected.

So the 70-200/f4 has f/4 over the whole zoom range, and the 1.4 TC adds another f-stop ... so it's well below f/5.6 -> works.

The 80-200/f4.5-5.6, however, would not provide AF, because on the long end, you'll have 5.6 plus an additional stop for the 1.4 converter.

Best regards,
Andy

PS: As far as your second question is concerned, with 450 mm focal length you should use a shutter speed of 1/500 to get sharp pictures according to the rule of thumb.

[Andy_T]

Handheld:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=269857
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=280666

Well, on the first photo, you shoud have used a faster shutter speed or tripod, because the background is clearly blurred.

:lol:

Just kidding, it's a very nice panning shot.
Both shots are great, actually.
What lens and focal length did you use?

Best regards,
Andy

[AmericaWestCMH]

Handheld:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=269857
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=280666

Well, on the first photo, you shoud have used a faster shutter speed or tripod, because the background is clearly blurred.

:lol:

Just kidding, it's a very nice panning shot.
Both shots are great, actually.
What lens and focal length did you use?

Best regards,
Andy



Thanks for the compliment. Both were taken with the 70-200 f/4L. The first Southwest was without the converter at the full 200mm, the second with the converter at the full 280mm. I don't see much of a quality loss with the 1.4x on there, maybe a tad bit softer.

[Canuck]

There aren't a lot of quality options... :(

The Canon 75/100- 300mm lenses are all pretty "poopy"..

I guess the best is the 75-300mm IS.. for about $450.00 if I am not mistaken.


The best "deal" in this range is the amazing Sigma 100-300mm f/4.. but it costs a bit more and weighs a bit more.

And of course there is the new Canon that is ridiculously overpriced.. the 70-300mm "DO" IS...

If you want quality.. I'd look at either the afore mentioned Sigma 100-300mm f/4

OR

The Canon 70-200mm f/4 L @ $550.00

Although it only goes to 200mm it IS a candidate for the 1.4X T-con which will offer 280mm and it will be a lot better quality than any fo the Canon 300mm zooms.


p.s. the Sigma can be used with a 1.4X T-con as well offering a sharp and quick focusing 140-420mm f/5.6 zoom! Not bad!

The 100-300mm F4 EX lens will set you back about $900. There are other options but you start talking over a grand real quick.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Hi,

Would any canon EF work with 1.4/2.0 TC. Also, i heard that autofocus doesn't work with TC's, is that true.

Thanks

As I mentioned in my first post.. the T-cons will NOT work with any of the Canon 300mm zooms.. they won't even fit on the lens.

The 1.4X WILL work with the 70-200mm f/4,.. it will retain AF because f/4 plus a 1.4X = f/5.6 which will AF on a 10D or Digital rebel.

A 2X t-con will work as well.. but you will NOT retain AutoFocus as the aperture then becomes f/8 (f/4 X 2)

[robertwgross]

A 2X t-con will work as well.. but you will NOT retain AutoFocus as the aperture then becomes f/8 (f/4 X 2)

I think you mean that f/8 is f/4 + 2 stops.

---Bob Gross---

[Olegis]

I have the 70-200 f/2.8L which I bought used for about $800 in Israel - and I love this lens. It's big, heavy, white and expensive beast, but it sure worth the money as it helps you to produce very nice photographs.
Here (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/wildlife&page=all) are some samples from this lens, all handheld.

[photobob]

Hi everyone

Thanks for the advice so far.

No-one's mentioned the 100-400 IS L - is that possible to use as a walk-around handheld?

Any advice on the quality on the new 70-300 DO IS? Presumably it will be better than the old 70-300 IS's?? - but given the price difference am I really going to gain much from buying the new version rather than the old (except a much smaller package)?

Thanks again - as a relative newcomer it's great to be able to get such good advice

Bob

[SlickStreet16]

No-one's mentioned the 100-400 IS L - is that possible to use as a walk-around handheld?

After much study, I just bought the 100-400 IS and it's awesome, especially handheld. It's heavy, but so is the 70-200 IS. It boils down to whether you need more zoom or a faster lens that performs better with less light.

If you want to photograph wildlife or action sports outdoors, the 100-400 is hard to beat.

I suggest you use the search tool at the top of the page and type in "100-400." There are numerous threads here discussing this lens.

[msvadi]

here's an example of 75-300 non-IS. It's the original size picture, so I only post the link. The picture was taken at 300mm wide open, ISO 400. Converted with BreezeBrowser, sharpness and noise reduction set to high.

http://pantheon.yale.edu/~vm49/040509_021-1.jpg