Tele Recommendations?/ Sell the L?

Hey everyone,

I'm headed out to Wyoming in about a month and am looking for a reasonably priced (~500-800) telephoto zoom or prime for wildlife and landscapes that's light enough for backpacking. Right now, the 70-200 f/4L, 200mm 2.8L, and Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 are at the top of my list. I like the Canon 70-200 but am worried it'll be too slow without IS, and I can't afford the premium. The 200mm seems nice, but I'm worried about having a focal length "hole" from 100mm to 200mm. And I know little about the Tamron besides that the price is right.

Secondary question: I have the 17-40L (on crop) and I've been relatively unimpressed with it. The lens seems very sharp at close range, but lacks "punch" for landscapes, even when manual focused. I'm probably going to sell it to raise funds, but I'm not sure what to replace it with. Will the 18-55mm kit lens offer close to the same results at landscape apertures (f/8-f/16)? Or should I look at the Tamron 17-50 or something?

The 70-200 F/4 is a fantastic lens, but in all fairness, the Tamron F/2.8 has impressed me. I have a Nikon buddy (I know...it's an oxymoron) that bought the Tamron a year or so ago. The color from that lens is crazy...every bit as good as Canon L's that I've seen. I was very, very impressed. If I had enough for either the Canon F/4 or the Tamron, I'd get the Tamron w/o a second thought. It might be a tad slower to focus, but the extra stop of light is well worth it IMO.

Have you considered getting the Canon 200mm ƒ/2.8L and a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter? That would give you 140mm when pairing your macro with the teleconverter and 280mm when pairing it with the 200mm. It would help close the focal length gap that you are worried about and give you more focal length at the same time.

As for your 17-40mm substitute, get the Tamron 17-50mm ƒ/2.8 non-VC. It is cheaper, sharp and faster than the 17-40mm.

^Good idea, are you suggesting the Kenko because the 100 macro doesn't have the electrical contacts for a TC? How does the Kenko compare IQ-wise to the Canon?

biggusdickus wrote in post #10105289
^Good idea, are you suggesting the Kenko because the 100 macro doesn't have the electrical contacts for a TC? How does the Kenko compare IQ-wise to the Canon?

I was suggesting the Kenko because it is cheaper and IQ is about the same as the Canon version. Also, the Kenko does not have a protruding element, so it can be used with any lens which I found very handy when I had it.

I had 200mm prime and that was not used at all as 70-200mm f/4L USM does it all just as good or better. The prime was too limiting. In decent light f4 is fast enough, and you can always use monopod for extra stability. If you need longer better look for 300mm f/4 IS (or the older non-IS cheaper).

If you're looking for a landscape lens, and planning to sell the 17-40L, take a look at the 10-22mm USM (or it's similar competitors from Sigma and Tokina). It makes for a much better choice on a crop body for that kind of photo. As for the zoom end, I was able to get a good deal on the 80-200mm f/2.8L for roughly what the 70-200 f/4L costs. I get 2.8 speed in a telephoto, and color and contrast that's hard to beat.

This is what has suited my needs, however. Your shooting style and needs can only be known by you.

I find that my 70-200 f/4L does just fine outdoors, with decent light. With a steady hand, 1/320th or faster shutter, udjusting iso on the 40D, I usually get super sharp images.

Jason C

If wildlife is part of your requirement, I think you are going to be dissappointed with having 200mm as your max focal length. You need 300mm as a minimum and 400mm - 500mm. I would suggest renting a lens that will give you a longer focal length, over buying one that won't give you fully what you need

daugirdas wrote in post #10105761
I had 200mm prime and that was not used at all as 70-200mm f/4L USM does it all just as good or better. The prime was too limiting. In decent light f4 is fast enough, and you can always use monopod for extra stability. If you need longer better look for 300mm f/4 IS (or the older non-IS cheaper).

I wholeheartedly disagree, I've owned both the Canon 70-200mm ƒ/4L and Canon 200mm ƒ/2.8L and I like the prime a lot more than the zoom. The Canon 200mm ƒ/2.8L is still in my bag whilst I have sold the 70-200mm. You can always stop the 200mm to ƒ/4 but you can never open the 70-200mm up to ƒ/2.8.

And what's really nice about the 200mm ƒ/2.8 is that I've found it to take teleconverters very well. I've used it with my Canon 2x extender and the combination worked great and got me some very sharp photos. But you couldn't use that combination as successfully with the 70-200mm because you would have to manual focus the lens on all but 1D series cameras.

BigBlueDodge wrote in post #10107109
If wildlife is part of your requirement, I think you are going to be dissappointed with having 200mm as your max focal length. You need 300mm as a minimum and 400mm - 500mm. I would suggest renting a lens that will give you a longer focal length, over buying one that won't give you fully what you need

IMO, buying used is the best way to rent. Would you suggest the 300mm f/4L or maybe a zoom like the Sigma 120-400mm (which I haven't really heard anything about?)

BTW, That_Fox, I tried to mount a Canon 1.4x on my 100 macro today and it won't mount due to the flange in the rear focus mechanism, do you know if the Kenko has the same protruding element as the canon?

biggusdickus wrote in post #10107587
BTW, That_Fox, I tried to mount a Canon 1.4x on my 100 macro today and it won't mount due to the flange in the rear focus mechanism, do you know if the Kenko has the same protruding element as the canon?

It does not, which is why I suggested it over the Canon version. I had suspected that the Canon version wouldn't mount due to the protruding element.

Pick want you want a wildlife lens or a landscape lens. The 70-200mms are either going to be not wide enough or not long enough. About the only lens that would cover both would be a used Bigma Sigma 50-500mm . But, then it would be too heavy for your use.