help with choosing a telephoto...

Hey all,

I’m in the market for a telephoto lens. I’ve been using the 28-135 canon for a while now and have always wished for that extra focal range. So I’ve been reading up on the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens which seems to have a fairly mixed review conclusion here. Does anyone here have any opinions on this lens or any recommendations? I was shocked that the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens doesn’t seem to be compatible with canons extenders… is this normal? I would have thought making it compatible would be a big selling point for a lens like this?

I know it’s a bit of a wish list but I generally want a lens that I can use for those close up shots from afar whether it be sports, wildlife or scenery so any help/advice would be most appreciated.

Thanks

Once you start talking sports or wildlife it may be better to look at the 70-200 f2.8. The extra stops will make it a better choice indoors or when the sun isn't shining brightly outdoors. The f5.6 on the long end of the 70-300 can work quite well for brightly lit sporting events but won't allow action freezing shutter times at other times. All comes down to the specifics of how you will be using it.

The 70-300L conclusion is mixed? That is news to me. I've only heard praise for the lens. The only negative I have heard people complain about is the variable aperture (f4-5.6) and that it is "slow" compared to some of the other lenses.

I own and use the 100-400L for almost exactly what you describe. But as soon as you decide to spend ~>$1,000, Canon has several excellent telephoto lenses. So, selecting which is best for you becomes pretty specific and could vary depending on if you shoot a crop sensor camera or FF. But, a quick guide based on what I have read:

• 70-300L: Excellent sharpness, fast focusing, 4 stop IS, latest technology, and weather sealed. Focal length range is good for general purpose telephoto. Aperture is a little slow, so you need good light, especially at the longer ranges. Light, and fairly compact.
• 100-400L: Longest telephoto zoom for under $2k, 2-stop IS, old design, good sharpness. Great focal length range that pairs well with most general purpose zooms to cover a wide range with two lenses. "Slow" aperture, so you'll need light.

Canon has 4 "L" lenses in the 70-200mm range. This is a great range on FF. I shoot a crop sensor camera (7D) and while I am tempted by the faster aperture and sharpness of these zooms, it hasn't been enough yet for me to pull the trigger as I just don't shoot that range all that often.

• 70-200 f/2.8 IS II: Generally regarded as the best zoom canon makes. But it is expensive. Can be mated with a 1.4x or 2x extender to make it a 105-280 f/4 or 140-400 f/5.6 lens (AF speed decreases with adapters).
• 70-200 f/4 IS: Excellent sharpness, many on the forum love this lens.
• 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS: Older lens, still great IQ, no IS.
• 70-200 f/4 non-IS: Older lens, typically the most affordable, ~$650. Still very good IQ, no IS

Then you also have primes, which tend to be sharper than zooms, such as the 300 f/4 IS, 400 f/5.6 non-IS. So, it gets down to what you want and what you'll use.

I am very happy with my 100-400L. I probably use it about half the time. I did buy it before the 70-300L came out. But I don't think I could give up the reach I get with 400 mm.

Hope that helps, good luck,
Brant

Thanks for the quick feedback. Very helpful indeed.

I’m using the new d5 mkiii so thought I had best compliment the camera with a good lens too. As for the mixed review – I meant that it seemed to summarise the review by saying this is a great lens if you want the range and simplicity of one lens suits most of your requirements…. BUT if you don’t mind the hassle of transporting more kit around with you, then look at a combination of lenses.

It does seem that 70-200 f2.8 II is the favourite around and the added bonus of being able to use an extender as well is an added bonus. BUT…. That’s a lot of cash considering the 1.4 extender and 70-200 still doesn’t reach the range of the 300.

I’d actually not thought about taking the leap to the 100-400 lens so what you say is really interesting and now adds more comparisons to the mix…. Back to the drawing board :D

Welcome!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronh

So I’ve been reading up on the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens which seems to have a fairly mixed review conclusion here.

---

First time I've heard that - it's an excellent lens by all accounts. It may be there's some confusion because are two Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens (one older non-L version, one L version), and also a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens and the cheap 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lenses (several flavors). The 70-300 f/4-5.6 non-L ($550) is not that great a lens - IQ is pretty bad at the long end, so that's 'mixed'. The DO lens is overpriced for what it is, IMO. But the 70-300 L is a truly excellent lens, assuming your budget reaches to $1500.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronh

I was shocked that the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens doesn’t seem to be compatible with canons extenders… is this normal? I would have thought making it compatible would be a big selling point for a lens like this?.

---

It's a bit unusual, in that the other 70-xxx L-series zooms are compatible with extenders. But the 70-300mm lens goes to f/5.6, which means you'd lose autofocus with an extender anyway (unless using with a 1-series body except the 1D X). The design of the lens places the rear element right at the lens mount with the lens retracted to 70mm, which is why the Canon extenders won't fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronh

I know it’s a bit of a wish list but I generally want a lens that I can use for those close up shots from afar whether it be sports, wildlife or scenery so any help/advice would be most appreciated.

---

What's your budget? If you've got $1500-1600, it really comes down to a choice between the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L. Both are excellent lenses. If you need 400mm and are willing to use a large, heavy lens then the 100-400mm is the way to go. Otherwise, I think the 70-300mm L is generally the better bet - it's smaller, lighter, has a better IS system, and delivers better IQ (assuming you don't need to severely crop your images). Personally, I have the 100-400mm and it's an excellent lens, although I generally use it with my 7D because if I need 400mm, the crop factor also helps put more pixels on target.

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is also excellent and sees a lot of use on my 5DII, works very well with the 1.4x extender and decently even with the 2x extender (unusualy for a zoom lens to deliver high IQ with the 2x) but I'd not recommend that as a routine use - extenders are best reserved for occasional use. If you need 400mm, get a lens that reaches 400mm natively.

If your budget is more in line with the 70-300 non-L version, you might consider the Tamron 70-300 VC (cheaper than the Canon, IQ at 300mm is slightly better than the Canon lens, but nowhere near the 70-300 L).

Hope that helps...

Thanks for that neuroanatomist, well I guess the budget is around the $3000 mark.. but of course would rather not spend that much. It more important for me to just get the right lens. While I like the option of having the focal range, one review I listened to banged on and on about the price for the 70-300 L (they said that it was overpriced?) and that having such a high aperture meant that you would always get poor results from less perfect lighting – eg shooting sport indoors. It’s not often that would happen for me but I’ve got tickets to the Olympics here in the UK so wanted something that I could use for those close up shots while indoors too.

thanks

That's tough - it's where prioritization comes in... An f/5.6 lens is usually fine outdoors (except for portrait use), but for action indoors, f/5.6 and even f/4 is not good - f/2.8 is about the minimum in those situations.

The 70-200 II is an excellent lens, but 200mm just isn't long enough for wildlife. If you wanted a general telezoom for occasional wildlife use, that plus the 2x TC may work. But if you are going to commonly shoot at 300mm or longer, that's not idea.

One possiblilty might be to get the lens you may use most, the 70-300 L or 100-400, then rent a fast lens for the Olympics (reserve now!). The 200mm f/2L IS would be excellent for that...

Something else to consider with that budget - is the 28-135mm your only general purpose lens? If so, you might want to consider upgrading to something that will deliver better IQ, such as the 24-105L or 24-70L. That plus the 70-300 L or 100-400 would come in under that amount.

Genius!! I’d not thought about combining the renting possibility as well as buying! And that was evil recommending a new general purpose lens but also another good idea.:D I think a combo of the 70-300 L and the 24-105 L and then renting the 100-400 for the games.

Cheers again for all the advice.

Helping others spend their money...that's what we do here at the TDP forums :)

I like your plan, with one exception. If you are indoors, the 100-400 is probably not the lens that you want. I believe Neuro recommended the 200 f/2 L IS. Depending on which event you are going too and how close you are to the action, the 300 f/2.8, 135 f/2 L or even the 85 f/1.8 may be good options. It would be something to play around with, how close are you to the action, and then find the right lens.

I haven't yet played with the 5D3. Maybe, if the 5D3 is as good at ISO 6400 or 12,800 as some have said, maybe you could use the 100-400L indoors. But that is something I'd want to test out first. Since f/5.6 lets the same amount of light hit the sensor all every focal length, you could use your current gear, set it at f/5.6 and f/8 and go to a stadium or similarly lit indoor area, and test out if you need more light or if you would be satisfied with the results.

if you do head out to an arena to check things out be sure to save your files in both RAW and JPEG. The JPEG conversion of the 5D3 just keeps amazing me for how clean it is. It is also on the JPEGs that Canon was able to claim 2 stops of ISO improvement. Just try it, you might like it!

Just a quick plug for the 70 – 300 L. I use that lens extensively on my 7D, and the image quality is fantastic. It doesn't matter if it's 70 mm or 300 mm or anywhere in between, it's fantastic. However, everyone is correct to point out that it is a "slow "lens. It is not so useful indoors with any moving subjects, but the image stabilization is excellent and works well with stationary subjects indoors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaronh

Genius!! I’d not thought about combining the renting possibility as well as buying! And that was evil recommending a new general purpose lens but also another good idea.:D I think a combo of the 70-300 L and the 24-105 L and then renting the 100-400 for the games.

Cheers again for all the advice.

---

I wouldn't like any of those choices for the Olympics, I would want the versatility of the F/2.8 of the 70-200mm II. I have been to way to many games this year and speed is everything, especially if you are unsure of the lighting.

The 200mm F/2 would be a good rental and fast enough but not versatile. Depending on the events you are going to, and since you are using full frame 5D III the 300mm F/2.8 might be a good rental. With either you better be prepared to pack some weight.

Renting a fast prime (200mm or 300mm) for the olympics seems like it would not be versital enough. The athletes or action will not be stationary (move closer and farther away), and your distance from the action from event to event is going to be unpredictable. So it seems to me a zoom is needed to cover a wider range of distances from the action that you are likely to encounter. Personally, I would go for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and resort to the 1.4X converter outdoors if you need more reach (more reach may not be needed indoors).

I have the 24-105 and 100-400, and neither is likely to be good indoors (as others have stated as well). And if they are not good indoors, then I doubt the 70-300L would be any good either.

Given a choice (money not an object), can anyone here seriously say they would pick a 24-100L, 70-300L, or the 100-400L over the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ???? I know they all have different uses, but if I could only get one lens... it would be the 70-200 II if I had the money.

Just a thought or two. Have you checked with the venue(s) to find out what, if any, restrictions there might be on the longest focal length that you'll allowed to bring in with you? As you said you have tickets already is there a seat map that will provide some information as to the distance you can expect to be from the action? If you can find these things out you may find that it could help narrow down your options to make the decision making easier. The other thing you might try is attending some college/university events of the same sports to get some idea of whether you can get a fast enough shutter speed with the aperture you are considering. Just remember the Olympians will be a wee bit faster...

Edit: Of the lenses I use for sports the 70-200 f2.8II is ALWAYS on one of my bodies. A wider zoom or 300 is on the other depending on the needs and the venue. A 1.4 TC is always on hand as well if I need the reach and a minimum aperture of f4 will work.