Dillema: Only 1 telephoto lens allowed

OK I have a dillema. I plan to shoot some wildlife (birds, elk, fox etc.) and also regular street photography.
Is the 70-200 F4L with a TC be good enough? Mind you I can only have one telephoto due to budget concerns. The tele has to double up as a versatile lens on other things like sports, streetscapes, portraits etc....
Should I get the 70-300 IS instead?

how about the 100-300 F4 sigma? much larger a bit more expensive ($900) lens than the ones you mentioned. but more versitale, and after you add the 1.4TC to the 70-200 F4 should be around the same cost.

delhi wrote in post #2008053
OK I have a dillema. I plan to shoot some wildlife (birds, elk, fox etc.) and also regular street photography.
Is the 70-200 F4L with a TC be good enough?

Should work OK with a 1.4x TC, but you lose autofocus with a 2x.

Even witha 1.4 TC, your lens will be fairly slow. I suspect you'd better take a look at for example the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 if money is a problem and you still want a versatile and fast zoom lens.

P.

Thanks for the comments. I find that the Sigma 2.8 is fairly heavy for walking around.

delhi wrote in post #2008138
Thanks for the comments. I find that the Sigma 2.8 is fairly heavy for walking around.

well in that case either of your two original lenses should work fine. but i think in the long run you would be more happy getting used to the wieght.

delhi wrote in post #2008053
OK I have a dillema. I plan to shoot some wildlife (birds, elk, fox etc.) and also regular street photography.
Is the 70-200 F4L with a TC be good enough? Mind you I can only have one telephoto due to budget concerns. The tele has to double up as a versatile lens on other things like sports, streetscapes, portraits etc....
Should I get the 70-300 IS instead?

the 70-200f4 with tc is what i use and i am very happy. it is my sharpest lens and is great for outdoors sports, portraits, candids etc.

i have not used the 70-300 but i think for your use it would be great. it is a bit slower and does not have ring USM tho.

beware this type of questions usually results in a flood of recommendations for much larger and much more expensive lenses than you really need.

someone may even recommend the 50 1.8 too .

you've narrowed it down to canon's two best portable, affordable zooms so i think you are on the right track !

ed rader

which TC are you using the f4l with? is the tamron 1.4X a good match?

wouldn't the 7-3IS be better since it has IS and would help with handholding on long focal ranges over a f4l+tc combo?

delhi wrote in post #2008421
which TC are you using the f4l with? is the tamron 1.4X a good match?

wouldn't the 7-3IS be better since it has IS and would help with handholding on long focal ranges over a f4l+tc combo?

i use the kenko pro 1.4 TC.

the 70-300 does not have ring USM and i shoot action. all my lenses have ring USM.

but yes the IS would be a big help and you wouldn't need the TC. i don't use the TC a lot but if i did i would probably be attracted to a longer lens.

i am considering the 70-200L f4 IS. if this lens equals the 70-200f4 in IQ and bokeh i'll probably end up with it at some point. but it costs twice as much .

in truth i am VERY pleased with my 70-200f4. i've owned it more than a year and i have taken thousands of pictures with it and it's the sharpest lens that i've used and the sharpest wide open.

ed rader

Someone already could have said that the 70-200 simply won't suffice for birds. I know it because I have one. even the f/2.8 with 1.4 xTC it is not a good solution. With 2x TC the image degradation is reportedly huge.

So you will have to decide if you really want to shoot birds. If soo, you'll be looking at arround 400mm. You'll have some sollutions pointed out for that range, but undoubtably the 100-400mm L is the most flexible compromise keeping great quality even at 400mm from the results I have seen. I never used one, though.
Then some might point you the Bigma but I'm not the best person to speak about it either.

with a 1.6 x cam + a 1.4 tc your gonna get around 400mm with a 200mm lens

molesrkool wrote in post #2008543
with a 1.6 x cam + a 1.4 tc your gonna get around 400mm with a 200mm lens

I get your point though I forgot to consider that, because I have a 1.6x sensor cam.
I already shot with a 300 mm (equiv. 300x1.6=400mm) lens and felt it was short most of the times.

But that's my opinion only.

delhi wrote in post #2008053
OK I have a dillema. I plan to shoot some wildlife (birds, elk, fox etc.) and also regular street photography.
Is the 70-200 F4L with a TC be good enough? Mind you I can only have one telephoto due to budget concerns. The tele has to double up as a versatile lens on other things like sports, streetscapes, portraits etc....

That is unfortunate, b/c one lens is going to have a hard time doing all these things.

For wildlife, you need a long lens. 200mm is too short, especially if you want birds.

For portraits, you need a short tele.

For sports, you'll need anything from short tele to long tele, depending on what you are shooting. And you'll need fast glass.

Classic street photography is done from up close with a wide angle or normal lens - ala Bresson and others. That perspective provides a more participatory feel to the images than long-lens sniping.

No single lens will do all of this well. Still, if you must, the Sigma 50-500 is your best best... or failing that, a Tamron 200-500/Sigma 170-500 and a used 28-105/3.5-4.5

Vandit

vkalia wrote in post #2008673
That is unfortunate, b/c one lens is going to have a hard time doing all these things.

For wildlife, you need a long lens. 200mm is too short, especially if you want birds.

For portraits, you need a short tele.

For sports, you'll need anything from short tele to long tele, depending on what you are shooting. And you'll need fast glass.

Classic street photography is done from up close with a wide angle or normal lens - ala Bresson and others. That perspective provides a more participatory feel to the images than long-lens sniping.

No single lens will do all of this well. Still, if you must, the Sigma 50-500 is your best best... or failing that, a Tamron 200-500/Sigma 170-500 and a used 28-105/3.5-4.5

Vandit

you're right. no single lens will do all those things well. especially not a lightweight, inexpensive walkaround zoom like the OP is looking for.

i don't think he's a hardcore birder or he'd probably already know what he needs.

i see this lens as more of a starting point and i believe the 70-200 (300) is an essential lens for most photographers.

ed rader

Ed, you are absolutely correct - if he is buying one lens as a building block towards an expanded system down the road, then a 70-200/300 is the best lens to start with. Look for used 70-200/4s once the IS version hits the market.

OTOH, it is a "one lens and out", then the Bigma would be it. Long term, I think the building block approach, with the 70-200/300 would make for a higher-quality system.

Vandit

no no... it's not a one lens solution. i already have short to mid range zoom covered. i just need a versatile telephoto.
i am just not sure whether the f4l + 1.4x tc would be a good combo should the odd time i want to venture out to the nearby wildlife parks to shoot animals/birds (photographically speaking). My budget is around that of the f4l or the 7-3IS. Also I like to be able to shoot portraits & sports every so often. Range wise, i feel the 7-3IS is perfect. Just not sure about the overall IQ and also losing f-stops....