What size of telephoto?

Sir, the longest lense I own is a 600mm. The problem is that it does have limited use so it sits in the bag most of the time. When we had the eclipse in 1999 it was wonderful, got some great photo's of totallity. I would buy a shorter lense for general use nothing more than a 400mm.

Don

Tony - you can get the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM IS for about £1200. L glass close to your budget. Worth a look.

Like you I love that 24-105 lens. I have quite a few L glasses and they rarely see the camera as the 24-105 does so much in one lens.

http://www.parkcameras.com/119...4-5-5-6L-USM-IS.html

Another vote for the Canon 100-400mm L.

I've used a friend's on quite a few occasions with my 30D. It would be hard to give up what the "L"s give you.

I generally use the 17-40mm, 24-105mm, and 70-200mm, all F/4L glass.


John

300mm with image stabilisation works pretty well. Much more than that and you need at least to consider a tripod. Are the 400mm users getting good results handheld? I suppose what it boils down to is how you will use the lense.

Another vote for the Canon 100-400mm 24-105mm & 70-200mm all L glass
Sigma is a good alternative brand, the 17-70 f2.8 is a good all rounder snapshot type that Canon are struggling to match

Mine are on 5D & 50D

A 70-200mm L in whatever aperture you can budget for, plus a 1.4x?

Tony

I have a 400mm f2.8 Nikkor VR AFS. It works fine handheld, but it is damn heavy. I use it on a tripod most of the time.

It is a pity that less expensive prime lenses are not readily available as I feel this would lessen the compromises when budgets are lower. The Nikkor primes are all pro-quality and very fast = expensive compared to the consumer zooms.

I don't know Canon lenses, but are you considering after-market brands as well?

For example - 300mm Sigma (No image stabilisation, though)

Also consider the possible combination of a 200mm lens and a tele-converter (or two).

You say you have an "oldie" 300mm. What's wrong with it?

I swore I'd never have another Sigma after I moved from an EOS5 to a EOS 10D and the Sigma refused to work.

Sigma offered a credit against the newer version which only took the price down to street price.

I got shot of the Sigma, and have only bought Canon since. YMMV.

John

quote:

Originally posted by fixedwheel:
I swore I'd never have another Sigma after I moved from an EOS5 to a EOS 10D and the Sigma refused to work.

Sigma offered a credit against the newer version which only took the price down to street price.

I got shot of the Sigma, and have only bought Canon since. YMMV.

John

Whoops. Sorry to hear of your experience. It was just a thought. This was a case of "do as I say, not as I do" as I only buy Nikkor. It is an extravagance, admittedly.

From a portrait & wedding photographer standpoint, we don't use anything longer than a 70-200 f2.8 VR.

I personally never use the uber teles, they're very expensive and hardly ever get used.

Each to there own I guess.

The other thing to consider is your sensor, with a full-frame 10+ MP sensor you don't need a 600mm lens for instance. You have enough MP to easily crop in to get your image with a 300mm.

The advice I give people, and they don't follow it, is to rent the big glass when you need it. That way you don't feel guilty when you have a $3,000 lens sitting in your closet and comes out once a year just because you think you need to use it ...

but you never know when you will need it, often at the strangest of times for example in a car park when a raven takes a fancy to some scrap food just too far for a standard lens.

Predicting lens use is almost a no win game.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
but you never know when you will need it, often at the strangest of times for example in a car park when a raven takes a fancy to some scrap food just too far for a standard lens.

Predicting lens use is almost a no win game.

And by the time you take the 24-105 off the camera, struggle to lift the 2kg tele out of the bag, mount it to the camera ... you've missed the shot ...

Better to get a Sigma 15-500 then you'll never have to change a lens again :^)

Tony
Depends really on what you believe you will want to photograph (how much magnification needed), how fast it is likely to be moving (how wide an aperture required), where it is located (how far you have to carry it on foot), how often you will use it, etc, etc.

When I was considering these imponderables I settled on a Sigma 70-210 (I think!) f/2.8 plus a dedicated 1.4x convertor when 200mm was inadequate. (They also make a 2.0x convertor). You do lose some aperture opening with the convertor against a 300mm f/2.8 but I just couldn't convince myself I would ever carry the larger lenses around. In my case I could have opted for Nikon f/2.8 zoom equivalent (as I did with the wider zooms)- not sure I would have noticed better quality as the Sigma is very sharp - but I could not justify the additional cost for something which I thought would not be used much - I was right about the last part!

Even with the 70-210mm zoom, it's still quite a weight to carry any distance with all the other bits and pieces. Worth bearing in mind if you do much walking - easily tested if you know the weight of the lenses you are considering - make them up in sugar bags and go for a dander - see what your back/ shoulders have to say when you get home!!

Peter

quote:

Originally posted by northpole:
(They also make a 2.0x convertor).

Whilst the 1.4 converter has some mileage, I would not bother with a 2x. You lose lots of F and my experience is that the photo quality is compromised. My converter spends all it's time in the camera bag - never used.

One other thing to factor in is that in most cases, if you are after a sharp picture with lowish ISO speed setting to help maximise quality, I reckon anything over 150mm warrants having a tripod hooked up (you can always make good use of a beenie bag and a fence!)- more weight..... probably why I mostly use a Leica M7 with a 35mm fixed focal length lens and leave the telephoto shots for others!!

Peter

You might want to consider what you want to do with a long lens. If it is only going to be used for special occasions you might consider renting. It can be expensive, but nothing like the cost of the lens. I guess it is also dependent on your access to a good camera store or more that offer the service.

Anything above 200 mm has been too heavy for me to lug around in a back pack, unless I know it's flat. These days I seldom go above 75mm.

I must be the fit young dude here! I have no problems carrying my bag, 40d, battery pack, 70-200 f2.8, a few bits n bobs, and my 16 stone frame around..... The weight makes my 70-200 more stable, in addition to its IS system.

Tony

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
the strangest of times for example in a car park when a raven takes a fancy to some scrap food

Is this really "the strangest of times"?

Hi Tony

In my experience, if I don't have a high likelyhood of using a lens, I leave it at home. I'd say, given the camera you have, a more modest 100-300* rather than the Bigma, together with some good technique and judicious cropping is likely to be more lucrative.

The longest lens I usually venture out with is a 180mm, which on my cropped body is equivalent to about 240mm

J [a lazy photographer who usually makes do with 35, 60macro, 100macro and 180mm]

note - I have no knowledge whatsoever of the relative qualities of various Canon lenses so 100-300 length is a notional guide, not a recommendation for that particular lens.

Thanks for all the help chaps. I'm very inclined to go for the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM IS, a lens I have considered in the past but somewhere along the line I was told it wasn't up to usual "L" standards.

Nevertheless, it's reasonably fast, it's Canon, and it's white!

Tony
I know nothing about that particular lens. It has the 'L' assignment which I presume indicates high quality elements. I'd suggest you dig out a few reviews on it as the widest aperture may prove really quite restrictive in all but ideal lighting conditions and most lenses have to be clicked down at least a stop to get into their sweet spot for optimal performance. Did I mention weight....
Have fun!
Peter

quote:

Originally posted by tonym:
somewhere along the line I was told it wasn't up to usual "L" standards.

Nevertheless, it's reasonably fast, it's Canon, and it's white!

Look at what customers here think - pretty positive feedback

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-10...ameras/dp/B00007GQLS

Thanks Adrian, that's really made up my mind!

Being one of the odd people I have a Pentax K7, I've always had a Pentax and I can use my old screw mount lenses.

Recently I got a Sigma 120 - 400, very nice, a bit heavy but reasonably easy to use. The lens that seems to stay on my camera is the Sigma 18 - 250, it has stabilization built in but the drawback is that it is a bit heavy. Although I'm going to try out the Tamron 18 - 250 which is a lot lighter. I wish tho Tamron would do the new 18 - 270 in Pentax mount, it's just Canon and Nikon at present.

Other lenses are:

Pentax 12-24
Pentax 16-45
Pentax 200 F2.8
Sigma 105 F2.8 Macro
Sigma 18-250
Sigma 120-400
Sigma 70-300 Macro
Gentek 500 mirror
Sunagor 500 full length
Pentax 200 F4 screw
Pentax 50 F1.4 screw
Tokina 28-80 PK mount

Bodies K7, K20D and K10D.

Biggest problem is always what to pack when travelling and doing a lot of sightseeing. The 18-250 has been the one so far and I will start using the 12-24 I got for Christmas for those tight shots.

All the best in your search

Tim

Tony
this may be of interest to you

http://www.photozone.de/canon-...-test-report--review

If you still have the rangie, you shouldn't have any problems transporting it!!

Peter