A tele lens for canon

[K1_zav]

Hello everybody,





I have sometimes a need in my photography for the followings:


- Taking picture of people in the streets, but not faces exactly and without disturbing people


- Preserving the bokeh and blurry background


- then Shooting at not so close objects





So, I have been thinking that I like to get a new lens with higher focal length. Then I thought of getting a tele lens and have been reading about different models.


By now, what I have in mind is a "canon70-300" lens (or tamron, sigma..., don't know exactly if they are much worse).


but I don't know yet if that is the best choice. Maybe I have to spend a little more to get a "70-200 f/4" or even another model that I am not aware of (maybe buying a 24-70 or 24-105 is also an option).


Any ideas?





Thanks





Cheers,


Keivan Zavari





P.S: I have a canon 450-D and normally I shoot with a 17-85 or 50mm f1.8... (so still amateur)

[Sean Setters]

Personally, I think the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L is the best lens for the money. In fact, Canon sells that particular lens refurbished on its direct sales website and it's in stock now. I'd highly suggest checking it out--you could save yourself about $100.

[neuroanatomist]

I'm with Sean on this - the 70-200mm f/4L would give you the best bang for the buck in that price range. Great IQ, excellent build quality, non-extending, non-rotating front element (important if you use a polarizer).

Preserving the bokeh and blurry background

Really, this is all about aperture. By 150mm or so, the 70-300mm zooms are at f/5, whereas you'll still be at f/4 with the Canon.


If you decide you want more focal length, you can add a 1.4x extender to the Canon for 280mm f/5.6, and even though an extender has a negative impact on IQ, you'd still have better IQ than either the Canon 70-300 (non-L) or the Tamron 70-300 @ 300mm.

[Daniel Browning]

I agree with Sean and John -- 70-200 f/4 is an excellent value, and unless you really need the reach of 300mm or image stabilizer, it would be my first recommendation too.

[clemmb]

Keivan,


I agree with the above, however, if you need IS the Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD is a great option. It is softer at 300mm but acceptable.


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x800/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/0763.IMG_5F00_0032_2D00_8x10.jpg[/img]


100% crop


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x800/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/5483.IMG_5F00_0032_2D00_100.jpg[/img]


Camera Model: Canon EOS 5D
Lens: 70.0-300.0 mm
Image Date: 2011-05-21 10:31:41 +0000
Focal Length: 282mm
Aperture: f/5.6
Exposure Time: 0.010 s (1/100)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Spot
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: Yes (Auto, return light detected)


Mark

[K1_zav]

Thanks guy for the tips... Great info.


This lens looks great, I really liked it.


Just a minor thing is that, do I need the IS?


because as I said I shoot mostly without a tripod and then I can not go for slower shots.


I must say I don

[clemmb]

For hand holding IS, (VC on the Tamron), is a must. I have not used the Canon 70-300 L but I can not imagine it being three time better. The sample I gave above is at 282mm which is the area that the Tamron is at its worse.


Mark

[scalesusa]

If you are trying to be inconspicious, a white telephoto is not it. The 70-200mm f/4L is very good. Even my 24-105mm f/4 turns heads with all that glass out in front.


You may have to compromise, big lens with lots of glass, or smaller lens with small aperture and phtsically small size. A 100mm f/2.8 might be a option if its long enough. The 135mm soft focus is also less noticible, you do not have to use the soft focus.