Stupid lens-question

I've been considering the 70-200/4 for quite a long time now, but as I don't very often need the tele, I might end up spending the money on a 17-40L instead.

My question is: Do the cheaper tele-lenses (i.e. EF 70-300) perform as well on a 1D as they do on the 350D or 30D?

I've read a lot about Nikon professional SLR's "killing" the cheaper lenses, resulting in reduced IQ. Is that a common issue with Canon too?

If not, I might get myself a cheper tele, just so I have something when I finally need it.

Well, this is not a stupid question. Actually, lenses focus faster on pro bodies. For IQ, depends what version of the 70-300 we are talking about here. IQ is as much a function of sensor/processor as it is lens IMHO.

Kristian,

most lenses are capable of delivering good images if you stop them well down (remember the old saying 'F8 and you're there'?)

Of course, that does not help you much if you are looking for a low light lens or a fast sports lens. But there are some low cost lenses (notably the Sigma 70-300 APO) in the 250$ range that normally receive very good reviews from their users.

Take a look here:
Initial results from the 300 mm zoom shootout

and of course the reviews at www.photozone.de.
Especially the new 70-300 IS lens seems to be a sweet lens ... but it's not much cheaper than the 70-200/4.0 L

Best regards,
Andy

Andythaler wrote:
Especially the new 70-300 IS lens seems to be a sweet lens ... but it's not much cheaper than the 70-200/4.0 L

No, excactly. That makes me wonder if I should just wait a little longer and then get the 70-200. My only concern is it's reach. 200mm on a 1D isn't always enough. So I'm in a kind of a dilemma right now, you see .

Thanks for the comments both of you!

on a 1D, more of the corners of the image circle would fall on the sensor and hence on the shot. Generally, corners tend to softer than the center of the image.

I think all of the **-200mm canon L-lenses, 80-200 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L IS perform very well on all Canon cameras...

But I think the 17-40 f/4L performs best on 1.6 crop bodies from Canon (D30, D60, 10D, 20D, 20Da, 30D, 300D, 350D, 400D) because of vignetting and soft corners...

Uhhh....

All of Canon's f/4 L lenses are superb in their own way. the only issue anyone has is with the f/4 thing - if you need f/2.8 lenses or are easily swayed by those who say or think they do, then you will not be satisfied with f/4

I am delighted with my 17-40L as a walk about, and I am delighted with my 70-200 f/4 as a medium tele zoom. i had a 75-300 USM lens that I got for my film camera, and it was 'shown up' by my digital camera, which pretty much revealed flaws that my 6x4 inch film prints never showed! Looking at an image at 100% on screen is MUCH larger than anything I've ever had printed, so it was quite obvious how dodgey this lens was.

If you want a cheaper 70/75-300mm lens then the sigma 70-300 APO macro is the best of the bunch, except for the new canon 70-300 IS lens which has a great reputation now that it has had the portrait problem fixed. But as andy said, the cost is not far off the f/4 L and also they are (or were!) in short supply.

the new 70-200 f/4 IS lens is another one to consider - i fgot to handle one yesterday and was very impressed - but it costs a great deal more than the non-IS lens .

Have a look at The Digital Picture for a good general Canon lens education

Thanks for the link, Steve, although I knew of that side already.

Ok, I've now ordered the 70-200 f/4.
But the fact that my widest lens at the moment is the Tamron 28-75/2.8, makes me wanna go buy the 17-40L when I have some money again. Is the Sigma 10-20 eventually going to be TOO wide on a 1.3 crop? Lot of vignetting and stuff? Have been considering that lens too.