Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lens Confusion  (Read 9611 times)
ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« on: November 12, 2005, 11:52:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello

I am looking to get a new lens, but a bit unsure of which one to get.

I think I have narrowed it down to three

EF70-200 f2.8 L IS USM
EF100-400mm L IS USM
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

The EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS is appealing because of the 'One Lens for many applications' style. BUT I have read it won't work with converters whereas the other two will, and are both faster lenses.

I have a 17-40 L lens for landscapes etc.

If anyone has any experience of the above three lenses please let me know how they perform

Many thanks
Logged
boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2005, 12:38:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I have none of these, but I have many Canon L lenses.

If you are looking for quality, from everything I have heard, the 70-200 f/2.8L is better than the other. It is considered one of Canon's finest.

Quote
Hello

I am looking to get a new lens, but a bit unsure of which one to get.

I think I have narrowed it down to three

EF70-200 f2.8 L IS USM
EF100-400mm L IS USM
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

The EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS is appealing because of the 'One Lens for many applications' style. BUT I have read it won't work with converters whereas the other two will, and are both faster lenses.

I have a 17-40 L lens for landscapes etc.

If anyone has any experience of the above three lenses please let me know how they perform

Many thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2005, 12:48:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have none of these, but I have many Canon L lenses.

If you are looking for quality, from everything I have heard, the 70-200 f/2.8L is better than the other. It is considered one of Canon's finest.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks for the info
Logged
DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2005, 01:32:03 PM »
ReplyReply

You don't mention which camera you are using, nor what you intend to take pictures of. Whilst 'by the numbers' lens performance has some relevance there is also the usability aspect of each individual lens and whether you are willing to carry it with you.

I have both the 70-200/2.8IS and 100-400. If I was choosing again I would go for the 70-200/IS over the 100-400 primarily because the latter is quite heavy and cumbersome and the former covers most of my requirements.

Is there any reason that you haven't mentioned the 70-200/F4 or the 70-300DO/IS? Both of which are baggable lenses with good performance in their own particular niche.
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
Peter Jon White
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2005, 02:14:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I thought about various Canon zooms and decided to just get them in the medium focal lengths and wide. I only bought the 16-35L and the 24-70L for my 5D. For longer lengths I've gone with primes; the 135 f/2L and 200 f/2.8L and tele-extenders. That keeps cost and weight down, and maximizes image quality. Sure, I sacrifice a bit of convenience. But the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom is very large and heavy; about 1 pound heavier than the 200 f/2.8. And f/2 comes in very handy on the 135. No way to get that aperture on a zoom.
Logged
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2005, 10:39:29 PM »
ReplyReply

The 70-200 L IS is a lovely lens and, combined with a 1.4x TC, delivers a versatile range of short to medium telephoto coverage.

I've tested the two side by side and the 70-200 (even with TC) is definitely sharper than the 100-400 through their shared zoom range and focuses more quickly as well.  On the downside, the 70-200 is NOT a light lens nor my idea of a walkaround optic.  

If you can, you might consider renting your lens finalists to see how they each work for you.  I did this with the 100-400 and discovered that, while I liked the 400mm reach, I absolutely hated the push-pull zoom.  

Paul
Logged

ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2005, 04:31:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 70-200 L IS is a lovely lens and, combined with a 1.4x TC, delivers a versatile range of short to medium telephoto coverage.

I've tested the two side by side and the 70-200 (even with TC) is definitely sharper than the 100-400 through their shared zoom range and focuses more quickly as well.  On the downside, the 70-200 is NOT a light lens nor my idea of a walkaround optic. 

If you can, you might consider renting your lens finalists to see how they each work for you.  I did this with the 100-400 and discovered that, while I liked the 400mm reach, I absolutely hated the push-pull zoom. 

Paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Many thanks for all replies. I like the idea of renting first, would save me a lot of cash in the long run. I use a Canon EOS 1D Mk II camera and am looking for good reach without compromising image quality. I like the idea of the 70-200 with the converter to give good reach without the extra weight of the bigger lenses.

I'll post back with how I get on

Many thanks for everyone's help, much appreciated
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2005, 10:19:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I have both the 70-200 2.8 ISL and the 100-400.  I second the strategy of renting prior to buying.  FWIW here is a link to a page where I did some tests with these 2 zooms, both 1.4 and 2x tc's and the 300 2.8 (for which I still lust).  To fully evaluate, right click on the image and "save as" then process through your normal sharpening workflow.  Some of the shots (particularly with the extenders) look soft, but actually sharpen up fairly well (and then some don't)....
« Last Edit: November 14, 2005, 10:20:05 AM by Tim Gray » Logged
ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2005, 05:54:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Thinking about getting a stronger tripod for the extra weight.

Any suggestions?
Logged
Yakim Peled
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2005, 02:25:32 AM »
ReplyReply

>> EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM
EF 100-400mm L IS USM
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

The first is the fastest and optically the best. If I were in your shoes I'd buy it + 1.4X Mk II TC. In fact, this is one of my dream lenses but financial issues keep it away from me :-(


Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Logged

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6877


« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2005, 05:45:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thinking about getting a stronger tripod for the extra weight.

Any suggestions?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For the lens, I'd choose without hesitation the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. The 28-300 is too large and heavy as a do-it-all lens (at least for my needs). I would also try the little f/4 brother 70-200. It lacks IS but is very light and compact.

A 1D camera and 70-200 f/2.8 lens is not yet in the heavy gun territory. I use both a Bogen (Manfrotto) Carbon One and a Gitzo 1348 tripods. However, they are not in the same class! The Gitzo in plenty strong for 70-200 or 100-400 lenses. On the other hand, the Carbon One is not as rigid and you can really see it when it's windy.
You'll find a few reviews on this site:
- [a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/gitzo-2227.shtml]Gitzo Explorer[/url]
- Velbon
- Manfrotto Carbon One

On DOP website:
- Tripods & Heads

If you search in the discussion forum you'll find quite a few threads on that subject.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2005, 05:49:16 AM by francois » Logged

Francois
MarkWelsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2005, 04:52:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Get a 70-200/4 - love it, then one day really need f2.8, feel
dissatisfied, buy a 70-200/2.8. Later feel the need of IS and upgrade
to the IS version.

Also get the 24-105/4 - love it, then one day really need something
faster, get a 24/2.8, 50/1.4 (preferably a Zeiss), plus an 85/1.8. But
keep the IS zoom.

Then one day see what an 85/1.2 can do, feel dissatisfied with the
85/1.8 and upgrade to the L version.

Also notice how abysmal the 24/2.8 is, and upgrade to the L. Then one
day really need something wider than the 24/1.4 and feel dissatisfied.
Look around confusedly. Test some bad Canon zoom lenses and feel
dissatisfied some more. Someone shows you a Zeiss 21 and you buy it
becuase it makes your work look wonderful. But feel a bit dissatisfied
with the waveform distortion.

Then one day you make the mistake of trying a 135/2 and of course you
have to have that.

Then one day you need something longer than the 200/2.8 IS and you buy
the 300/4, but it doesn't have IS, so you upgrade to the 300/4 IS.

Then you find that you're not using the 70-200/IS much because it's so
big and heavy, so you buy a 70-200/4 because it now seems so light and
sharp. And you sell the Zeiss 21, too, because it's worth so much
money now, and it doesn't render straight lines. And someone tells you
that the 300/4 non IS is much sharper than the 300/4 and you're not
sure whether to believe them, but it makes you feel slightly
dissatisfied with the IS version.

Then you think: wouldn't it be great if I could sell all this junk and
just buy one really great long, fast zoom lens? And you look hard at
the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and you try it but it's too heavy and that
makes you feel dissatisfied.

So you look at the 100-400IS and you think: that's the answer to all
my problems! But you try it and you find it's not very sharp and that
makes you feel dissatisfied, so you get a Sigma 100-300m f4 and it's
great! And you use it a lot but eventually it makes your arms tired
and it's soft at the long end and it doesn't have IS and that makes
you feel dissatisfied.

Then one day you have to do a shoot in the rain, and you worry about
your 5D because it's not weatherproof (and that makes you feel
dissatisfied) so you try the 1Ds II and it's GREAT. And then you find
that none of your wide angle lenses are sharp in the corners and you
wish you hadn't sold your Zeiss 21mm and that makes you feel
dissatisfied.

So you sell everything, go on holiday, come back and buy a 350D with
the 17-85IS lens and find that it does almost everything you need it
to do anyway, except the viewfinder is rubbish (and guess how that
makes you feel?) and it's a bit flimsy, and then you start to think
the long end isnt long enough and then someone tells you that the
Sigma 18-50/2.8 is a lot sharper, or the Tamron 28-75mm and you read
all these posts praying for Canon to release the new lightweight full
frame 17-300mm f2.8 L IS but that just makes you feel dissatisfied
becuase it turns out to be just a rumour, and then you decide to take
up painting. Enjoy.
Logged
ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2005, 03:11:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Get a 70-200/4 - love it, then one day really need f2.8, feel
dissatisfied, buy a 70-200/2.8. Later feel the need of IS and upgrade
to the IS version.

Also get the 24-105/4 - love it, then one day really need something
faster, get a 24/2.8, 50/1.4 (preferably a Zeiss), plus an 85/1.8. But
keep the IS zoom.

Then one day see what an 85/1.2 can do, feel dissatisfied with the
85/1.8 and upgrade to the L version.

Also notice how abysmal the 24/2.8 is, and upgrade to the L. Then one
day really need something wider than the 24/1.4 and feel dissatisfied.
Look around confusedly. Test some bad Canon zoom lenses and feel
dissatisfied some more. Someone shows you a Zeiss 21 and you buy it
becuase it makes your work look wonderful. But feel a bit dissatisfied
with the waveform distortion.

Then one day you make the mistake of trying a 135/2 and of course you
have to have that.

Then one day you need something longer than the 200/2.8 IS and you buy
the 300/4, but it doesn't have IS, so you upgrade to the 300/4 IS.

Then you find that you're not using the 70-200/IS much because it's so
big and heavy, so you buy a 70-200/4 because it now seems so light and
sharp. And you sell the Zeiss 21, too, because it's worth so much
money now, and it doesn't render straight lines. And someone tells you
that the 300/4 non IS is much sharper than the 300/4 and you're not
sure whether to believe them, but it makes you feel slightly
dissatisfied with the IS version.

Then you think: wouldn't it be great if I could sell all this junk and
just buy one really great long, fast zoom lens? And you look hard at
the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and you try it but it's too heavy and that
makes you feel dissatisfied.

So you look at the 100-400IS and you think: that's the answer to all
my problems! But you try it and you find it's not very sharp and that
makes you feel dissatisfied, so you get a Sigma 100-300m f4 and it's
great! And you use it a lot but eventually it makes your arms tired
and it's soft at the long end and it doesn't have IS and that makes
you feel dissatisfied.

Then one day you have to do a shoot in the rain, and you worry about
your 5D because it's not weatherproof (and that makes you feel
dissatisfied) so you try the 1Ds II and it's GREAT. And then you find
that none of your wide angle lenses are sharp in the corners and you
wish you hadn't sold your Zeiss 21mm and that makes you feel
dissatisfied.

So you sell everything, go on holiday, come back and buy a 350D with
the 17-85IS lens and find that it does almost everything you need it
to do anyway, except the viewfinder is rubbish (and guess how that
makes you feel?) and it's a bit flimsy, and then you start to think
the long end isnt long enough and then someone tells you that the
Sigma 18-50/2.8 is a lot sharper, or the Tamron 28-75mm and you read
all these posts praying for Canon to release the new lightweight full
frame 17-300mm f2.8 L IS but that just makes you feel dissatisfied
becuase it turns out to be just a rumour, and then you decide to take
up painting. Enjoy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51553\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL    

Good link at the bottom though, thanks
Logged
ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2005, 08:05:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Question - Can the 28-300 be used with tele converters?, a 2x would make this lens a good one for long reach
Logged
Peter Jon White
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2005, 09:03:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Question - Can the 28-300 be used with tele converters?, a 2x would make this lens a good one for long reach
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51674\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It can't be used with Canon's teleconverters. Can't say about other brands.
Logged
Peter Jon White
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2005, 09:13:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It can't be used with Canon's teleconverters. Can't say about other brands.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51698\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, I shouldn't say that. Canon doesn't list the 90mm TS-E as being compatible with their tele-extenders either. But I've been using it with the 1.4x extender with excellent results. So, my suggestion is to see if the lens that protrudes forward in the tele-extender will touch any part of the rear of the 28-300 lens. If it doesn't, then you won't damage anything. At that point the only issue is image quality. And the only way to know that is to try it.
Logged
BradSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 264


« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2005, 12:40:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Get a 70-200/4 - love it, then one day really need f2.8, feel
dissatisfied, buy a 70-200/2.8. Later feel the need of IS and upgrade
to the IS version.
.......
.......
 and then you decide to take
up painting. Enjoy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51553\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Mark,
You produced an all time, classic post.  By the time I was half way through it I was LOL and by the end, had tears in my eyes.  Hilarious.

Can't pass up the opportunity....alternate ending......
Your 14 year old son gives you a "way cool" lens baby for Christmas, you mount it on the 1968 Minolta SRT 101 that's been in the back of your closet for 30 years and you love shooting that new, exciting medium, FILM.  You sell your $25,000 worth of lenses and digital SLR's for 1/5 what you paid for them and are live happily ever after.

Brad
Logged
Yakim Peled
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2005, 11:11:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark, I saved that in my favorites. Great post. Do NOT change it!
Logged

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Peter Jon White
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2005, 09:21:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thinking about getting a stronger tripod for the extra weight.

Any suggestions?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I bought a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod about ten years ago when they first came out. It's the 1228. It has four sections. They now have a similar tripod with three leg sections, which is much faster to set up and a bit stiffer. If I were buying one today I would get the three section version, which is called the 1227.

For a head I really like the Really Right Stuff BH-40 with the lever release clamp. It's an arca-swiss style clamp that requires you get arca-swiss style plates for your camera and any big lenses. But it's truly a wonderful system.

You just place your camera or big lens over the head and flip the lever and your camera is rigidly attached to the head. For my 5D I have an L plate. The L plate give me an attachment point below the camera as well as on the left side for verticals. So rather than tilt the head for a vertical, I flip the head's lever open, lift off the camera, turn it to the side and re-clamp it. That keeps the camera centered over the tripod.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8210



WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2005, 09:54:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I bought a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod about ten years ago when they first came out. It's the 1228. It has four sections. They now have a similar tripod with three leg sections, which is much faster to set up and a bit stiffer. If I were buying one today I would get the three section version, which is called the 1227.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=52051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fully agreed. I have been using a 1227 for a few years now, and it works great.

The only disadvantage compared to the 1228 is that the sections being longer, it is more difficult to pack when flying.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad