Which telephoto lens?

[John - NJ]

I was looking at the 75-300mm IS lens and comparing it to the 100-400mm IS lens. Big difference in price. Is there a big difference in image quality? Is the extra 100mm worth 3+ times the money?

The lens that Pekka has, 75-200mm 2.8, has a smaller aperture but you lose that last 100mm. This lens is also much more expensive than the 75-300mm.

Any thoughts between these three? Thanks.

[Andrei]

John,

don't be in rush. Look at there:

http://www.photographyreview.com/reviews/35mm_zoom_lenses

75-300 from Canon has a very low rate. I am personaly considering Tokina or Tamron. But for super-wide lens.


John - NJ wrote:
I was looking at the 75-300mm IS lens and comparing it to the 100-400mm IS lens. Big difference in price. Is there a big difference in image quality? Is the extra 100mm worth 3+ times the money?

The lens that Pekka has, 75-200mm 2.8, has a smaller aperture but you lose that last 100mm. This lens is also much more expensive than the 75-300mm.

Any thoughts between these three? Thanks.

[John - NJ]

I've been looking at the lenses again.

I've read what Pekka said about the 70-200 2.8 lens and how having 2.8 at 200m is a great thing. It has great reviews. But it's 3 pounds. Pekka admits he has to bring a monopod with him to use this lens. The 70-200 4-5.6 is half the weight. Is it worth the extra weight?

I was thinking about using the 2x teleconverter with a long lens. The 70-200 2.8 would become 140-400 5.6. Any thoughts on how that would work? How would it compare with the 100-400 IS lens

Has anyone tried a 100mm macro lens?

Thanks.

[Pekka]

John - NJ wrote:
I've been looking at the lenses again.

I've read what Pekka said about the 70-200 2.8 lens and how having 2.8 at 200m is a great thing. It has great reviews. But it's 3 pounds. Pekka admits he has to bring a monopod with him to use this lens. The 70-200 4-5.6 is half the weight. Is it worth the extra weight?

I normally do NOT carry a monopod with it, but now I know that if I have to shoot about two hours straight I'll get it with me. You can easily hold D30 and 70-200 f/2.8L and it's a very comfortable system to hold - but not for hours. A bigger problem is carrying it around the whole day - even if I'm from a family of champion weightlifters my back gets tired when I carry all the stuff (3 lens + 550EX or two, D30, 4 accus) the whole day. So if you're shoulders are sore and back weak the weight could be an issue and then it's better to buy a lens you will carry and not the one that gets left home.

Quality-wise I can tell you that this lens works for portraits, sports, animals (you can use 1.4x or 2.0x ring, too) and generally anything which needs speed, isolation by DoF and high quality. What I've seen is that every pro has it, and for good reason. The same aperture in both ends of the zoom is very usable (you can see how problematic it can get when using 28-135IS indoors) The price tag is big but I'll pay it gladly (and keep paying...).

I was thinking about using the 2x teleconverter with a long lens. The 70-200 2.8 would become 140-400 5.6. Any thoughts on how that would work? How would it compare with the 100-400 IS lens

one opinion:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&page=3&message=1158136

1.4x is very popular choice as it does not affect image quality at all.

Has anyone tried a 100mm macro lens?

100mm macros have had very positive reviews and often quoted to be the sharpest lenses (the sharpest one is 135/2.0 so they say). You can find several reviews in http://www.techphoto.org/urllinks.epl?webobjectoid=21191

PS. here's a nice page which shows all lenses in life size: http://www.tanchung.com/canon/canonlensesmain.htm


Pekka

[Pekka]

And check this out:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&page=1&message=1164102

[John - NJ]

Pekka:

Thanks for all the info. I'm pretty much convinced. I'm looking at the 70-200 2.8 L, the 100mm 2.8 USM macro and the 1.4x extender.

My only obstacle right now is the $2,200 price tag.

[redbutt]

John - NJ wrote:
Is the extra 100mm worth 3+ times the money?


Can't speak to that, but don't forget about the 1.6 magnification factor of the camera.

[bigspam]

Well I bought the handfull that is the Sigma 50-500.
If it weren't so heavy, I'd shoot with it all the time.
I'm very pleased with it.
Fast focusing and sharp.
And a monopod is a must though so something else to lug along.

[kd6lor]

I own the 75-300 mm IS lens. I too had read the reviews about the quality of the image from this glass. I consider myself an avid fan of photography, but not a high-end consumer or professional. Cost drove me to this lens, and I have no regret. The images that I have gotten from this lens handheld are amazing. They are sharp, and have great color. Given the cost of the newer longer lens, I made my decision and have no regrets. Only thing that has bothered me, is that the front element rotates during focus, making polarizing filters a problem with the autofocus. If you set the focus manually, it will be NO problem. I thought about this before I bought the lens, and realized that my style of shooting with a polarizer didn't usually involve rapid shots where the autofocus was imortant. Also, when I need rapid shots, I can't set the polarizer fast enough anyway. So preseting the focus and the polarizer is O.K. for rapid shooting conditions.


PJ

Elan2E body - collecting dust. EF lenses waiting for a digital body to be hooked up to...

[subq]

The 100-400L is truly an amazing lens. The money you are paying is not really for the extra 100mm it is for the quality of the lens. I have read extensive reviews and looked at countless sample images and the 100-400L blows pretty much everything away in that range. There is no comparison between the 70-300 and the 100-400L (the 100-400L wins hands down).

On the difference between the 100-400 and the 70-200 I think it is an application difference. The 70-200 is going to be a more well rounded lens then the 100-400. The 100-400 is more applicable to wildlife and things you have plenty of light and need that extra reach for. Personally, I have both these lenses on my "to get" list and the 70-200L is the first one to get for sure.


John - NJ wrote:
I was looking at the 75-300mm IS lens and comparing it to the 100-400mm IS lens. Big difference in price. Is there a big difference in image quality? Is the extra 100mm worth 3+ times the money?

The lens that Pekka has, 75-200mm 2.8, has a smaller aperture but you lose that last 100mm. This lens is also much more expensive than the 75-300mm.

Any thoughts between these three? Thanks.

[subq]

oops missed this post...another one I have seen tons of tests on. The 100-400ISL wins this battle. If you are on an extremely tight budget the 70-200 with 1.4x or 2.0x will do I suppose. Some people say you need to get the Canon teleconverters though. So add the costs up when you start buying those canon teleconverters up your getting aweful close to just buying the 100-400 outright. Just keep in mind any telecoverter is not the optimal solution to get that distance range (they all degrade the image to an extent)....they are however, sometimes the most cost effective (or applicable) way to get that range and some appear to do quite well in the quality category.

John - NJ wrote:
I've been looking at the lenses again.

I've read what Pekka said about the 70-200 2.8 lens and how having 2.8 at 200m is a great thing. It has great reviews. But it's 3 pounds. Pekka admits he has to bring a monopod with him to use this lens. The 70-200 4-5.6 is half the weight. Is it worth the extra weight?

I was thinking about using the 2x teleconverter with a long lens. The 70-200 2.8 would become 140-400 5.6. Any thoughts on how that would work? How would it compare with the 100-400 IS lens

Has anyone tried a 100mm macro lens?

Thanks.

[TulsaRod]

Got a D30 today with a Tamron 28-300 lens. The lens was $329 with the $100 rebate. It seems to be purty good for the money, but no IS feature. For starting out on a budget its probably a resonably priced 10x lens.

I posted a moon shot I took tonight in the "share pictures" section if ya wanna peek.
See ya

[Roger_Cavanagh]

John,

I used to have the 100-300IS, which I was happy with on my old EOS500E, but on the D30 I really noticed the poor quality of images at 300mm. Can't think of quite the right word to describe them - not just soft, but also...

I used the 100-300 in part exchange for the 100-400L, which _is_ great, but _does_ weigh a ton! It is far superior to the cheaper lens , as other posters have said, justifiably. OTOH the 70-200L f/2.8 + 1.4 extender is a pretty flexible alternative.

If you can afford L glass, go for it. You might change the D30, but you'd never have to change the lens.

Regards,


Roger

[JGabbard]

I just completed a test comparing a 28-105 "regular" Canon lens and and 28-70 2.8 "L" series lens. There IS a difference in the "L" glass, especially with the D30. I would only settle for the cheaper lens long enough to use it to make the money to get the "L" series, such as the 70-200 2.8 L. In my opinion, the "L" is well worth the money.

[benamen]

I am just playing around with the forum. Hopefully nobody notices.

[tim]

I am just playing around with the forum. Hopefully nobody notices.

Please stop bumping old threads with useless posts.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oh... "somone" will allways notice.....