canon telephoto lens

[kam007]

Hi everyone,


I have a question on the difference between a telephoto zoom lens and a telephoto lens. Is there a difference in sharpness or quality between the two? I always thought that a telephoto would be great for the outdoors (I like to take pictures of wildlife). I currently use a 70-300mm USM lens and I'm wanting to take the next step in getting a lens that would actually be good for wildlife photography. I was looking at the 100-400 telephoto zoom lens, but I had overheard (not knowing if this this true or not) that telephoto ZOOM lens are of lesser quality (picture wise) than just a regular telephoto lens. Any suggestions? thanks you guys.


Kam

[Oren]

Generally speaking, a prime is much sharper and has better IQ than a zoom.

[Dallasphotog]

Oren is correct that the telephoto primes (like the EF300mm f/2.8 L IS USM or the EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS USM) are some of the sharpest of Canon's lenses. I use the EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM regularly and the image quality is superb. If you are buying any L series lens, the IQ will be good enough to support substantial enlargements and large amounts of cropping.

I used the EF400mm f/2.8L IS USM all weekend for a sports shoot and it is amazing...

[Daniel Browning]

Is there a difference in sharpness or quality between the two?

Yes, often there is. In some circumstances the prime has higher contrast, other times its higher contrast and resolution is apparent.

I was looking at the 100-400 telephoto zoom lens, but I had overheard (not knowing if this this true or not) that telephoto ZOOM lens are of lesser quality (picture wise) than just a regular telephoto lens.

It's generally true, but in some circumstances the difference will not be very big. The 100-400 is a really great lens, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it for wildlife. In any case, there are very few inexpensive prime lens alternatives to the 100-400. The high end teles like the 500mm f/4 and 300mm f/2.8 cost a lot more and are much more difficult to handhold. One of the big advantages of prime lenses is the bokeh.

[canoli]

I would add that, to answer your

Is there a difference in sharpness or quality between the two?

question, so much depends on who you ask. If you can borrow or rent before you buy, do some tests etc. you'll see why there are conflicting opinions, and all of them are "right."


Most of the old-time guys at B&H and other shops around town have told me, "stay away from the zoom lenses kid." But there are just as many who'll say, like Brian does here on his site, that today's zooms are so much better than 10 years ago, it's becoming very hard to tell the difference, especially at normal viewing distances.


It'll come down to just how discriminating you want to be. The 300 2.8 or the 100 Macro will most certainly give you better sharpness than any zoom at comparable focal lengths, but of course sharpness isn't everything. My 70-200 produces nicely-saturated colors, from wide open to racked out. And when I really nail the focus it is an incredibly sharp tool. Its bokeh at 2.8 can be quite beautiful, and the convenience of that particular range in the city, where I normally shoot, is so very useful. I love that lens to death.


On the other hand, if you've simply got to have the sharpest shot you can make, a fixed focal length lens is still your best bet.