5 Telephoto lenses, good & bad?

[Spargo]

As I continue the search for the best telephoto lens (for me) I have found about 4 models I would like to know what other people think of. They are:

Canon 70-200mm f/4 L - $580
Sigma 170-500mm f/5.6-6.3 APO - $649
Sigma 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 APO - $539
Tokina 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 - $469 after rebate
Canon 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS - $415

I know that almost all of you have nothing bad to say about the Canon 70-200, but how does it compare to the other 3? Thanks for any comments. :)

[Persian-Rice]

If it were in the order of first to last choice...........
1. 70-200 4FL
2. 70-200 4FL
3. 70-200 4FL
4. 70-200 4FL
5. 70-200 4FL

so you were right.............

[Spargo]

Also could someone explain a lens hood?

[Persian-Rice]

It reduces/eliminates lens flare by blocking out reflections or secondary sources of light ie. direct sunlight that may come into contact with the lens when you don't want it it.

It's like when you can see something out of the corner of you eye that keep bugging you, it pretty much cuts that out.

If you don't get it, it might be good to do a quick search on the board or google.

cheers.

[Spargo]

I understand, thanks.

[Quinn Porter]

The Canon 70-200 is capable of higher quality images than the others. It is faster than the others (will give you the option of using faster shutter speeds and will give you greater control over depth of field). It is better built than the others. It is considered to be one of the best buys in the Canon lens line-up.

The other lenses are longer.

The Canon 70-200 f/4L is a real gem. Most of Canon's zoom lenses that offer this kind of quality and are built as well cost more than $1,000.

[Olegis]

There is also Sigma 100-300 EX APO f/4 - real sweet lens, from what I've seen on the net. DeltaInternational.com sells it for about $750.
After my first attempt (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41434) to shoot real wildlife birds, I started to research the available telephoto lenses, and this Sigma looks like the best deal right now. You can mount it with x1.4 TC and get 140-420mm lens with almost no image quality degradation ...

[Andy_T]

According to http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html :

1) Canon 70-200: 4.17 (3) = very-good
2) Sigme 170-500: 2.78 (4) = average
3) Sigma 135-400: 2.86 (4) = average
4) Tokina 80-400: 2.39 (4) = sub-average
5) Canon 75-300 IS: 2.62 (5) = sub-average

6) Sigma 100-300/4.0: 4.18 (3) = very-good

Mind you, these are subjective marks, the number in brackets denotes the number of reviews going into the ranking.

Another lens to look at might be:
7) Sigma AF 4-6.3 50-500mm: EX RF 3.20 (3) = average, but an incredible range!

If I tell you to do a forum search for 'Bigma' (as opposed to 'Sigma'), you might guess about its most prominent feature.
Similar with the 100-300/f.0, these two lenses are real beasts that you might not want to hand hold for a long time.

The Sigma 100-300/4.0 definitely looks like a good deal ... but it's always that you'll find that if a Canon L and Sigma EX lens have similar characteristics, the Sigma will be a bit cheaper. However, the Canon will keep its resale value better, most likely.

Best regards,
Andy

[slejhamer]

If it were in the order of first to last choice...........
1. 70-200 4FL
2. 70-200 4FL
3. 70-200 4FL
4. 70-200 4FL
5. 70-200 4FL
...


That's pretty much how I'd rank them too.
8)

[roanjohn]

Dont forget the 200 f2.8 L.

They have one used in adorama. 568 USD.

:-)

Ro1

[Spargo]

Does anyone have some sample shots of any of these lenses? It would be appreciated very much. :D

[quickben]

I can't believe no-one has mentioned the 100-400L 4.5-5.6 IS USM !

I know it's in a different price league, but you might find a used one for a more reasonable sum. The image quality is astounding and so is the build. It's quite portable compared to the bigger Sigma's and has the advantage of IS, aswell.

See some of Cadwell's motorsport photos, most of his work is done with this lens.

Gary.

[Cadwell]

See some of Cadwell's motorsport photos, most of his work is done with this lens.


Thanks :) but not strictly true... Most of my track work this year has been done with the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX HSM but that lens is way out of the price range we are discussing here. I have been using the 100-400L quite a lot recently (new toy and all that) and it is a very fine lens but the Sigma has the edge for me. If only it wasn't so damn heavy!

Out of the list that Spargo posted I'd go for Canon 70-200 f/4L. I have one and love it.

[briangig]

if you are considering the 70-200mm f4, look into the 2.8 version. For a little more money you could pick up a used one for 600-850 (if you find a deal). That extra stop helps out for low light.

But it is also heavier than the f4, and a bit bigger. I would go for the f4 over the ones on your list, you can always add a 1.4x tc too if you need more reach. 2x if you really need the reach and have enough light.

[Andy_T]

For a little more money you could pick up a used one for 600-850 (if you find a deal).

... That would have to be a very good deal, I think. :shock:

Best regards,
Andy

[Spargo]

After reading another post in here and discovering pbase.com, I did a search to see some pics taken with the Digital Rebel using the Canon 70-200mm f/4L and the Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. I must say that it is difficult to notice a difference of sharpness while zoomed in.

75-300 f/4-5.6:
http://www.pbase.com/image/15673963 @ 235mm
http://www.pbase.com/image/29975358 @ 300mm

70-200 f/4L:
http://www.pbase.com/image/32005055 @ 200mm
http://www.pbase.com/image/32005360 @ 200mm

What do you think?

[briangig]

For a little more money you could pick up a used one for 600-850 (if you find a deal).

... That would have to be a very good deal, I think. :shock:

Best regards,
Andy someone was selling one on here last week for $710. Granted it doesnt look new on the outside, quite the opposite, but who cares? As long as the glass is clean. I just got one on ebay for 725, people have gotten them for less too.

[briangig]

After reading another post in here and discovering pbase.com, I did a search to see some pics taken with the Digital Rebel using the Canon 70-200mm f/4L and the Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. I must say that it is difficult to notice a difference of sharpness while zoomed in.

75-300 f/4-5.6:
http://www.pbase.com/image/15673963 @ 235mm
http://www.pbase.com/image/29975358 @ 300mm

70-200 f/4L:
http://www.pbase.com/image/32005055 @ 200mm
http://www.pbase.com/image/32005360 @ 200mm

What do you think?
it depends on what you want to do with it. The 70-200 will be better in lower light, and give you more consistant (good) results.

[Spargo]

Well, most of the time I will be shooting in the middle of the day. Sometimes I will be shooting in dusk/night time, but when it's dark I want it to look dark. When I take a picture I want it to look just like I see it. I'll still have to spend more time thinking about these two...

[Cadwell]

After reading another post in here and discovering pbase.com, I did a search to see some pics taken with the Digital Rebel using the Canon 70-200mm f/4L and the Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. I must say that it is difficult to notice a difference of sharpness while zoomed in.

75-300 f/4-5.6:
http://www.pbase.com/image/15673963 @ 235mm
http://www.pbase.com/image/29975358 @ 300mm

70-200 f/4L:
http://www.pbase.com/image/32005055 @ 200mm
http://www.pbase.com/image/32005360 @ 200mm

What do you think?

With images reduced in size like that and then sharpened you're not going to see much difference between lenses. The full scale picture would be a very different story. At 160x120 pixels it's hard to tell the difference between my 10D/100-400L and my mobile phone ;)

[Spargo]

Are those full size scaled down, or 100% crops? They don't say, but that is a good point. Does anyone have any full size pics with these lenses on the Rebel?