Please help me choose the best telezoom lens

I'm fairly new to photography, but already got myself a Canon 7D with a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM lens.


I'm on the market to get a good zoom lens, but I'm contemplating as to what brand, focal length, aperture, etc...





After some research I see that the most popular lens (in terms of build/picture quality) is Canon 70-200 f/2.8. For me, price isn't a big concern, but what I'm looking for in a lens, is a magnification level (and quality of the resulting picture too of course!) as well as versatility - it has to be a zoom lens and not a fixed focal length. Take for instance binoculars or bird-watching scopes - those lenses can magnify an object 20, 40, 60 times... From what I've been able to gather, a 70-200 lens is an equivalent of 10x magnification. So I've looked at a bigger focal length lens such as Sigma 150-500 (Sigma also has 50-500), but most of the reviews say that the picture quality is not that great. So perhaps it will make sense to get a canon 70-200 f/2.8 on top of a canon 2x extender to achieve the maximum magnification? Please advise.





Thanks

I must say, the 70-200mm f/2.8 L is a magnificent lens with superb picture quality. However, you already seem quite concerned about the focal length. Are birds your primary subjects? If so, we've got a few photographers in this community that specialize in birds, and they should be able to weigh in on the lenses with longer focal lengths.

You might want to read this:


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Wildlife-Lens.aspx





I've got the 70-200 f4L myself, but for wildlife I wouldn't recommend it. For larger animals the 200mm might do the trick if you get close, but for birds you must be very very close to get a nice shot.


The 70-200 f2.8L lens is a very nice zoom-lens though. Also comes in handy for a lot more than just wildlife. I must say that the Image Stabilized version is certainly a major plus.


You might also want to look into the Post your best nature picture and post your best birds picture on this forum and look at the lenses they use for the pictures:


http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/t/850.aspx


http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/t/2706.aspx


That must give you a good insight of what you want and what to expect.


good luck

Hi MD, welcome to The-Digital-Picture Forums [:)]


I advise against the 70-200 f/2.8L + 2x extender. This seems like a good way to have a 70-200 f/2.8lens and a 140-400 f/5.6 lens, but in reality the image quality that you get from a 70-200 f/2.8 + a 2x extender is not great and the autofocus is significantly slower than that ofthe bare lens. I recommend you reading Bryan's Lens Recommendation page and you'll see why it's almost impossible to have a do-all lens.


Nate

As I have said before in this forum, consider a longmanual lens. Such as the FD 300mm f/2.8 L with a 2X, FD 400mm f/2.8 Lwith a 2X, FD 500mm f/4.5 bare L, Nikkor 600mm f/4 manual or the FD 800mm f/5.6 L. The FD 600mm 4.5 is not a great lens, the Nikkor (Nikon) is a better lens in this focal length. You will have to convert these lenses but because of the cost for the new stuff it will be worth your time.


I am using a Minolta 600mm f/6.3 bare and with a 2X and I love It!


Here is an example shot.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/_5F00_MG_5F00_4030-reduced.JPG[/img]


Here is a 100% crop.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/_5F00_MG_5F00_7774.JPG[/img]


Pretty good eh?


John.

Thanks a lot guys for replying. I've looked at the amazing willife pictures, and it looks like most of them are done with lenses under 200mm (Except for Sinh Nhut 400mm [8-|])... This lead me to a conclusion to get a 70-200 f/2.8 lens now and if that won't be enough I will look into 400-600mm lenses.


Also thanks for welcoming me to this site, this is the best resource for beginners like to me to get an overview of variety of lenses, cameras and accessories prior to buying them!

You might consider the IS version, I think it's really worth the extra money. I'm sure you won't regret your decision, it's a great lens!


Welcome :D

if you have time, I'd appreciate a 100% crop of either ducks eye/headin the example shot.

I know it's not the newest of Canon lenses but don't discount the 100-400mm f/4 - 5.6L IS.


Nate used this for a lot of his bird shots before upgrading I believe (correct me if I am wrong) and the results were outstanding.


It may not be the fastest lens in town but unless you go for a prime lens then it's as good as it gets for a telephoto zoom. And since you mentioned that it must be a zoom lens you should keep it in mind.


Good luck, Cheers.

If it has to be a zoom, the 100-400 is, in my opinion pretty good. It doesn't compare to a prime, but it'sa zoom! Certainly better than a 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter. I did that a couple times, EVER. Was not happy with it at all. I was actually kind of pissed off. Bryan said it wasn't that great, but I had to learn for myself...

btaylor, I never owned the 100-400mm [:)],I have the 400 f/5.6 prime.


Nate,

Thanks again guys, I guess I'll just rent out the 100-400mm lens and see how it behaves and what kind of image quality it produces at 400mm. If I won't like it, I will get a 70-200mm 2.8 IS USM and then a 500mm 2.8 prime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _MD_

...and then a 500mm 2.8 prime.

---

Who you gonna pay to build one of those for you?? [;)]Canon has a 400mm f/2.8, and a 500mm f/4. If you really must have f/2.8 at 500mm, Sigma achieves that with their 200-500mm f/2.8 zoom lens, for a mere $30K. The 35 pound weight of the lens makes it quite convenient to use, as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _MD_

From what I've been able to gather, a 70-200 lens is an equivalent of 10x magnification.

---

Actually, on your 7D, it's the equivalent of 2.2X - 6.4X magnification (WRT the actual angle of view, not the viewfinder.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _MD_

So I've looked at a bigger focal length lens such as Sigma 150-500 (Sigma also has 50-500), but most of the reviews say that the picture quality is not that great. So perhaps it will make sense to get a canon 70-200 f/2.8 on top of a canon 2x extender to achieve the maximum magnification?

---

The 70-200 f/2.8+2X TC looks better than the 50-500, but that's not saying much. The 150-500 is better, though.


Personally, I suggest the Canon 100-400. As far as telezooms go, it's very good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2slo

if you have time, I'd appreciate a 100% crop of either ducks eye/headin the example shot.






<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Sure hereit is.It is VERY SLIGHTLY out of focus but still better than most cheapo lenses. The shot was to good to trash justbecause of that.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.86/_5F00_MG_5F00_4030-crop.JPG[/img]


I made it a vertical crop so you can see the DOF better.


John.

I have the 100-400 and love it. 200mm is not enough for most wildlife





here a pic of a elk taken T 400MM - handheld, it is a little under exposed, as it was taken after sunset





[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/1000x500/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.92/elk-2.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunslinge

200mm is not enough for most wildlife

---

This was taken with an Olympus point-and-shoot (in my pre-Canon days),in<span>Parc Nationaldes<span>Volcans, Rwanda. 35mm focal length equivalent is 125mm. We were close<span>...


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/Gorilla.jpg[/img]

Ok you are right, I have a picture of a buffalo thru the window of my car, I was less than three feet from the buffalo's head, and used 17-50 mm lens set to 17mm, I - the camera mis focused and the picture is very soft, so I will not be posting it.

Even ifcan use a shorter lens most of the time your picture will look better at least 200mm, but most of the time for practical reasons you need at least 400mm and above. Such as not getting close enoughto get a reasonably framed imageor getting so close your subject acts unatural, or getting more shots you would otherwise miss because it can take so long to approach a wild subject.


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gunslinge

Ok you are right, I have a picture of a buffalo thru the window of my car, I was less than three feet from the buffalo's head, and used 17-50 mm lens set to 17mm, I - the camera mis focused and the picture is very soft, so I will not be posting it.

---

LOL! I also agree on 200mm being too short for most wildlife. In my opinion 300mm on a crop body is also too short.

200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 800...you can never have enough focal length for wildlife photography. Just get the longest lens with the maximum budget that you're allowed to get.

Sorry, I mean 400mm f2.8 (not 500mm)





But in terms of a telezoom, what would you recommend: canon 100-400mm, sigma 150-500mm or sigma 50-500mm?


Sigma obviously has a greater zoom but is the picture quality that much better on canon?

MD;


I just wrote a reply in the Canon wildlife lens? which after reading this question applies here also. I posted some shots taken w/a 40D 100-400 and comment upon the 70-200 as a wildlife lens.


Take a look....you may or may not find it useful.


Regards


Bill