Need advice on lens choices

Hello,


I'm new to this forum and was wondering if someone(s) could help me choose between theCanon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM & theCanon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS


I am an amateur photographer and upgrading to a 50D from a Digital Rebel and will also be purchasing aCanon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM - I am leaning towards the 70-200mm


I mostly shoot landscape, architecture, moving water like waterfalls and special effects like motion trails from car lights at night.


I realize that they are very different but would love any feedback.





Thank you...





quattrophinia


[;)]

I'd definately get the 70-200/4 IS


:-)

I agree. If for no other reason, choose the "L"lens becauseit is commonly accepted that a lens witha smaller ratio between focal lengthswill bebetter.

The 70-200 f/4 L IS really *is* the best zoom Canon makes, in terms of both overall sharpness and performance. I still regret selling my last one - so much for doing friends favours....

The 70-200 f/4 L IS hands down. I have a 50D, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and it's a great combo. However, I will advise that you get the 17-55 first. Honestly, the 17-55 stays on my camera about 90% of the time. The focal range tends to be a hell of alot more useful than the long reach of the 70-200 when paired with a crop sensor. Don't get me wrong, the 70-200 produces great pictures, but its extra long reach tends to be a downside for my kind of shooting. When reach is needed, it's a fantastic tool to have. However, from what you've said, I think you'll probably get the more use out of the 17-55 like I do.

I like to shoot some of the same stuff, and use a wide angle lens alot, think about the 10-22 zoom, I would alway choose a "L series lens" ie 70-200mm over any non-L series, after getting two, a 24-105 L and a 100-400 L, I put by old lens in the closet and have not used them since.

Thank you to all of you, it's greatly appreciated...

for what it's worth, the 18-200 is a great walk around lens, a 'one-lens-does-it-all', so you might be happy in that respect. The optics aren't going to compare with the other two lenses you're considering purchasing, but, they also don't haave the range. OTOH, nothing compares to 70-200 f4IS, as far as I am concerned. a fantastic lens, and I do mean FANTASTIC! It is a little long on a crop, so you will need a shorter lens(like you are thinking of purchasing). The 17-55IS is agood lens,but it is very, very pricey(considering it's not an "L"). In that respect, I would consider the Tamron 17-50. The optics are just as good as the 17-55IS, and costs half as much, therefore saving you money in the long run(possibly to buy a prime(Sigma 30 1.4 comes to mind). Another option, also, is the Canon 17-40 f4 L, which loses some length, a stop, but is alot cheaper, has great optics, and would work very good for what you are considering doing. You could also rent any of these lenses(lensrental.com), and come up with your own informed decision, which will give you a great hands on experience!! Thanx for listening, Gregg.

Thank you for that Gregg, good points..

Gregg: The 17-55 may not be 'L' but have you seen the pictures? Many reviewers say it is absolutely L quality. The quality of the 17-55 2.8 is through the roof. It's the weather sealing that breaks the L deal but in terms of image quality I was blown away.


Check out the review:


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


Let me quote: 'As it turns out, my 17-55 matches or exceeds the optical performance of my L-Series zooms in this similar focal length range ...'





So it is well worth the price and investment. (And I am sorry to say but I didn't think the Tamron you mention in your post is nearly as good as you make it out to be. It's cheaper, but the quality is far less than the 17-55). (And yes, I had both lenss when I shot with a crop body). Just my two cents.

I agree with you Madison, I have already decided to get it as it gets killer reviews. Some people wonder why it's not an L lens, only Canon knows...


[;)]

Apparently, according to Chuck Westfall, Canon will not call any EF-S lens a "L" lens because it does not fit on full frame or 1.3x crop cameras. But for all intents and purposes, the 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S is a "L" lens in terms of optical quality.

Interesting, thanks..

I also have had both before I switched to FF, and I do like the 17-55, BUT, is it really worth more than TWICE the Tamron?? If you look at Brian's ISO comparisons, the Tamron is actually just as sharp or sharper at almost all comparable settings....which leads me to believe that is the Tamron is a great lens for the price. Sure you lose IS, which I like very much....in these hard times, think in my own opinion, that I would like to save $400-500 on a lens to keep for other things-i.e., flash, prime, or to keep a little something in my pocket. Just my two cents...G

For me, the IS alone is worth the difference. As is the build quality. But you're right: those choices are so personal and differ between people.
The price difference is quite big. Tamron is great for the price, and you could invest in an extra prime. True With economic problems everywhere, I canno judge if anybody should or could afford to spend the cash on the 17-55.
I did, and never regretted it. The Tamron had less real world oomph than the 17-55 had for me. Perhaps I had a bad copy. It happened with a 24-105 as well.





One thing that did bug me about the 17-55 was the amount of dust that gathered inside the lens. I had it cleand out twice.





I do wish Canon would make the 17-55 2.8 IS with that quality for a full frame however. It is the one lens I still miss occasionally because I was so used to it. It was my walkaround for quite a while before switching to FF (that turned my 24-105 into my walkaround).

to , Madison and the original poster....that is also why i recommended the Canon 17-40L...it is a great lens, has top notch build quality, superior optics, although you lose a stop. But I don't think that matters to much on a walk-around(which the 17-40 would be on a crop), as it compares to my 28-70L, whick typically i don't use at 2.8, unless absolutely a must, or I want just a little more bokeh. You can find the 17-40 for just around$500, used on ebay or Craigslist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Gardner

Apparently, according to Chuck Westfall, Canon will not call any EF-S lens a "L" lens because it does not fit on full frame or 1.3x crop cameras. But for all intents and purposes, the 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S is a "L" lens in terms of optical quality.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Really? Why did they make an exception for the Powershot Pro1's lens? I've never heard of anyone using it on a full frame, and it was an "L". BTW, I'd love to see a Powershot Pro2.

To the OP, this is an obvious choice, as stated by the rest of the posters here. Get the 70-200L and you won't look back. Especially since you stated that you primarily shoot landscape. You don't need 2.8, the IS is top notch, and the IQ is incredible.

Thank you dancam... that's the one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan

Why did they make an exception for the Powershot Pro1's lens?

---

They did it also for their video cameras. My guess is that the digicam, DSLR, and video each have their own marketing division and each get to choose when and where to use the "L" marketing tool. Chuck Westfall's comments likely only apply to the marketing division that he is in: DSLR, where it's been decided to only use it for full-frame lenses. Personally, I think Canon would make more money if they relaxed that marketing restriction, but it doesn't really matter to me how much money Canon makes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan

Why did they make an exception for the Powershot Pro1's lens?

---

They did it also for their video cameras. My guess is that the digicam, DSLR, and video each have their own marketing division and each get to choose when and where to use the "L" marketing tool. Chuck Westfall's comments likely only apply to the marketing division that he is in: DSLR, where it's been decided to only use it for full-frame lenses. Personally, I think Canon would make more money if they relaxed that marketing restriction, but it doesn't really matter to me how much money Canon makes.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Thanks. That explanation makes the most sense. I just wish that they made some "L" EF-S lenses. :-)

You could probably put a nice red ring around the lens with some vinyl and adhesive... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

You could probably put a nice red ring around the lens with some vinyl and adhesive... :)
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

No, no, no....all he needs to do is find himself a good autobody shop and get a red pinstripe. Maybe it could be tribal or something, so it would really stand out from the crowd. Of course, there's also always the Wal-mart vinyl pinstripe kits. [:D]

If you want to use only ONE lens, then then 18-200mm might make sense--e.g., for traveling or hiking where size and weight would be a consideration. That's the only way I could put the 18-200mm over the 70-200mm f/4L IS, assuming that you can afford either. (They are very different in price--$1100 vs $595 at B&amp;H.) The latter is, according to several reviewers, the best zoom lens of ANY make, period. (It has considerably better image quality than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and, according to one in-depth review, can be used at even SLOWER shutter speeds because of the superior IS. The main advantages of the f/2.8L IS lens come in when you have moving subjects, which IS doesn't help with, want to blur the background more, or need a lens built like the proverbial tank.)


If you haven't used the 70-200mm f/4L IS, you'll probably be VERY pleased. It's silky-smooth to zoom (I can use the little finger of my right hand to zoom!), extremely fast to focus, has a phenomenal IS, is a reasonable weight and size, etc. It's the best and easiest-to-use zoom lens I have to use. (I also have the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for indoor sports, the 100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS for wildlife, the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS for "walking around," and the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 for kicks.) The 70-200mm f/4L IS is a SUPERB landscape lens.


I would also recommend that you shell out the extra money to get the tripod collar. (It's one of the few L zooms that doesn't come with a collar.) That will be particularly useful for your slow shutter speed shots, as it will balance much better than mounting the camera on the tripod.

Thank you for that George...

One more consideration: the 70-200mm f/4L IS can be used as a decent "almost-macro" lens by using the Canon 500D close-up lens. The 500D doesn't come in a 67mm size, but you could get the 77mm and a step-up ring so that you could also use it on the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. (Technically, the 250D would be better for the 17-55mm lens, but it doesn't come in the 77mm size.) You could do pretty much the same with cheaper "close-up lenses," but those are usually a single element, which causes some loss in quality compared to the double-element 500D. I'll try to get some photos with the 70-200mm f/4L IS and 500D in the next few days--the flowers are starting to come out. The combination can focus only in a fairly narrow range, but you can use the zoom to vary the magnification.

Thanks George, I love macro photography and actually thought about doing exactly that. What about extension tubes, do you have any experience with those?


Would love to see some samples of your macro photos... thank you

I like extension tubes for getting a non-macro, wider angle lens to get up close, but they narrow the focusing range, so that the lens becomes useless in non-macro situations. With the 35mm f/1.4, once you put the 25mm extension tube on it, you pretty much have to get right up against whatever you're trying to take a picture of. Want to back up, you need to change to a shorter extension tube.

Ok... noted... thanks

The 70-200 2.8L IS is just great. It was one my first lenses I bought when I switched from Olympus to Canon some years ago. The other lens I bought was 1 17-40 4L.


It's great for action (I shoot a lot of pictures from bicycle races) when mounted on a 1DmkIII :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quattrophinia

Thanks George, I love macro photography and actually thought about doing exactly that. What about extension tubes, do you have any experience with those?

---

I'll try to summarize the pros and cons of the three approaches to macro photography, as best as I know: macro lens, close-up lens (add-on), and extension tubes.


- Macro lens (e.g., the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, which I have)


Pros

1. Sharpest picture, best image quality, especially the 100mm f/2.8 Macro ("spectacular optics," says Ken Rockwell)
   
2. Usually good magnification (e.g., 1:1)
3. Focuses from infinity down to 1:1 in one twist of the focus ring
4. Easiest to focus, autofocus usually works very well and very fast (bright viewfinder)
5. Can use the lens for other purposes (good "portrait" lens, for example; reasonably good for sports)
   
6. Fairly long working distance (from the front of the lens to the subject) with 100mm or longer
7. Fairly fast (f/2.8 for the 100mm)
8. Least vignetting
9. No flash shadows in most cases

Cons

1. Expensive--you have to buy another lens
2. Heavy--you have to carry another lens
3. No IS available (not that major, as high magnification shots should be done with a tripod or other steady support and/or with flash)
4. Focal length changes with magnification (at high magnification, the 100mm Macro lens is really less than 100mm)

- Add-on Close-up lenses (e.g., Canon 500D)


Pros

1. No significant light loss, so they are as "fast" as the lens you put them on (good or bad[:D])
   
2. Less expensive than the Macro lens
   
3. Much lighter than the Macro lens
4. Least bulky option (about the thickness of two normal CPL filters stacked
5. Works on almost any lens (get the largest size and use step-up rings), including IS lenses, though some lenses will work better than others (the 500D is best for lenses in the 70-300mm range; it works very well with the 70-200mm zooms).

Cons

1. Image quality worse than the other two; may have worse chromatic aberration (color fringes)
   
2. Focus range can be very limited, which means magnification is sort of "fixed," though the zoom gives you some choice
   
3. 500D is more expensive than good third-party (not Canon) extension tubes (and heavier)
4. Focus can be difficult; you will probably have to use manual focus and/or move the camera to get into the focus range
   

The cheap close-up lenses (usually come in a kit of 3 or 4) are single-element and will have worse image quality, especially chromatic aberration (color fringes) than the double-element Canon 500D. However, they are the cheapest way to get into macro photography and may be fine for many people. They do have the advantage of various strengths (diopters), which can be stacked for greater magnification. There are sets made by manufacturers like Hoya that seem to be better than the run-of-the mill sets one can find on eBay.


- Extension tubes (e.g., Kenko's latest, which are cheaper than the Canon tubes but work just as well, plus you can get a set of three, versus two Canon tubes)


Pros

1. Image quality nearly the same as the lens attached to them (a bit less because the image is spread out more)--no CA added
2. Cheaper than the other two (compared to 500D, not to cheap close-up lenses)
3. Lighter than the other two (again, compared to the 500D; the cheap close-up lenses may be fairly light)
4. May work with all lenses, if you get the latest models that can mount EF-S lenses
5. Longer focus range than close-up lenses (usually--depends upon the set-up)
6. Can be used for more than close-up shots: put one or more on a long telephoto lens to get a larger image still at a reasonable distance

Cons

1. LIGHT LOSS--can be significant. Essentially, they spread the image out over a larger area at the sensor (thus, the sensor sees only a portion of the image from the lens). That can dramatically reduce the light intensity. Doing manual exposures with extension tubes can be difficult for the mathematically-challenged, but TTL exposures should be close--you should experiment with exposure compensation, in any case.
2. Lose focus range--cannot focus at infinity
3. May be difficult to autofocus (see #1 for why) (the REALLY cheap extension tubes don't have electrical circuits and don't support autofocus OR aperture settings at all--avoid those like the plague)
4. The effect depends upon the ratio of the tube length to the lens' focal length: they are most effective with short focal length lenses, much less with long lenses
5. Less depth of focus than basic lens, as you're essentially using a longer focal length.
6. Rather fragile compared to the other two (some tubes are easily cracked)--look for tubes with metal mounts rather than plastic
7. Bulkier than close-up lenses if you carry the entire set
8. Adds to the length of the lens (cheap tubes can be wobbly)
   

Which is best? Depends upon what you want. (Yes, I know that's a non-answer!) Extension tubes are versatile--I have read of bird photographers who use them with a 500mm lens to enlarge the image of a bird 50-100 ft away. You can use any one, two, or all three of the Kenko (or the cheaper [url="http://www.adorama.com/MCAETEOS.html?searchinfo=canon%20extension%20tube& amp;item_no=1]Pro Optic[/url] set from Adorama) set to get various magnifications. (Just remember that, the longer the tubes, the more the light loss.) The close-up lenses are the most convenient to use: I don't even bother taking off the UV filter. The macro lens has the best image quality, continuous focus, and is the fastest (well, except for my 100mm f/2 with the 500D).


The 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens is, well, spectacular--see [url="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/100mm-macro.htm]Ken Rockwell's review[/url]:
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]Good News:
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]1.) Spectacular optics!
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]2.) Super sharp.
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]3.) No distortion.
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]4.) Super-fast focusing.
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]5.) Goes to 1:1 in one twist.
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]6.) I'll say it again: spectacular optics!
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]Bad News:
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]None. This is a great lens!
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]I love this lens. It does everything well and has no weak points.
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left"]<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"]It's
hard to convey this in writing. This is one of those lenses that works
so well, efficiently and effortlessly you wonder why all lenses can't
be this good.
<p align="left"]Bryan is almost as effusive in his [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx]review[/url]:
<p align="left"]"
The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens is an excellent macro lens - and may be Canon's most fun per dollar lens.
This is the lens I most frequently recommend for someone starting out in macro photography."
<p align="left"]The 180mm L Macro lens has a longer working distance, but not
significantly better image quality and is a LOT more expensive--$1300
vs $490 at B&amp;H; it's also almost a stop slower--f/3.5 vs f/2.8. The non-Canon macro lenses (Sigma 105mm f/2.8; Tamron 90mm f/2.8; Tokina 100mm f/2.8) are almost as expensive as the Canon 100mm f/2.8 and probably not as good. I wouldn't bother with the shorter macro lenses (50mm, 60mm, much less the Tokin 35mm!) because their working distance will be much less for the same magnification. Their only advantage would be longer depth of focus.
<p align="left"]Note that I didn't mention the "macro" zoom lenses. They have the "pro" of being cheaper (maybe) and more versatile than a true macro lens, but at the expense of lower image quality and slower maximum apertures, plus few go to 1:1--the better ones go down to 1:2.
<p align="left"]So, what do I do? Depends. (Another non-answer!) When I'm doing nature photography and want to be prepared for anything, I carry a Think Tank [url="http://www.thinktankphoto.com/ttp_product_SpdRcr.php]Speed Racer[/url] belt bag or [url="http://www.rotation360.com/]Rotation 360[/url] backpack with the 30D &amp; BG-E2 grip, 17-85mm IS, 100-400mm L IS, Sigma 10-20mm, and the 100mm Macro, plus a 1.4x teleconverter and do-dads. (I may add a 580EX flash in a Think Tank pouch.) If I want to lighten the load, I can leave the 100mm Macro home and take the 77mm 500D close-up lens and a 67-77mm step-up ring (which is really there all the time so that I need carry only 77mm filters). When I'm shooting horse shows, I take the 30D + grip and 17-85mm IS (I want to get the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS) plus a smaller bag (e.g., Think Thank [url="http://www.thinktankphoto.com/ttp_product_ChngUp.php]Change Up[/url]) with a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 580EX, and either an Optura 50 camcorder or 85mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8 stacked, especially if it's indoors or in a covered arena. I may throw in the 500D in case I find something interesting.
<p align="left"]That brings me to two other points. First, you'll want to use some sort of stable support for many shots. Shooting
at macro magnifications means a shallow depth of focus, so it can be
hard to hold the camera in focus. To prevent blurring from camera
shake, you'll have to use a fairly fast shutter speed, which means
wider aperture and shallow depth of focus. A good support will help
both. Another factor is that, very often, your subject will be quite
low, including right on the ground. There are many options: tripods
that can get close to the ground and/or can "bend over" to shoot at low
objects, mini-tripods (the best I've found is the Gorillapod Focus,
but, with a ballhead, it's heavy and bulky), "ground pods"
(sleds/frames to which you can attach a ballhead), bean bags, etc.
<p align="left"]Second, in a lot of macro photography, you'll want to use flash. That has two benefits: more light allows you to use a smaller aperture with greater depth-of-focus (pretty shallow for macro) and the flash will stop action, allowing you to use a reasonable shutter speed. It can also cause the background to be dark, if you want that effect. I know of four options. The simplest is an ordinary flash off the camera, either on a special macro flash bracket (which can be almost as expensive as a macro flash!) or handheld. (On-camera flash will probably shoot over a subject that's very close to the lens.) You can use the Canon Off-Camera Cord with an E-TTL II-capable flash to get pretty good exposures, plus the Off-Camera Cord is useful for other situations. The cheapest "macro-only" approach is a cheap continuous "ring light." They aren't flashes, so they won't help stop action, but they can improve the light. Next are true ring flashes, including dedicated E-TTL-capable models. I use the Sigma EM-140 DG, as its specs (and use) are as good as the more expensive Canon MR-14EX and a lot better than the cheaper models from Bower, Phoenix, Dot Line, etc, though those would be much better than nothing. The "ultimate" is the Canon MT-24EX twin light, but it's also the most expensive, at nearly $700.
<p align="left"]

Brilliant George, thank you so much for taking the time, it's fantastic to get such detailed feedback.


[;)]

Very thorough, George.


One question/point:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Slusher

Just remember that, the longer the tubes, the more the light loss

---

Correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that the light difficulty is due to the magnification itself, not the tubes. That is, no matter what method one uses to get magnification, one runs into this same issue. (After all, a macro lens has a close focus distance because it has more travel, ie it sort of has built in extension tubes...)


Unless, of course, one introduces vignetting... but that seems unlikely for small apertures used in macro (again... correct me if I am wrong)

I believe that the extension tube's contribution is primarily changing the focusing distance.





Do they change the angle of view as well?

Excellent post, George. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

I believe that the extension tube's contribution is primarily changing the focusing distance.

---

I believe that, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

Do they change the angle of view as well?

---

It depends on what you mean. They allow you to focus closer, and when you do focus closer, your angle of view diminishes. But of course if you focus 10 feet away with or without extension tubes, you get the same angle of view.