What size of telephoto?

Yes,

Canon 100-400 L Series lens, no question.

You won't regret it.

Regards

Justin

quote:

EF) - 16-35mm 2.8L, 24-105mm 4L (stays on the camera most of the time), 50mm & 90mm primes (the latter a macro) plus a few other oldies, including a 300mm telephoto.

Tony,
I too want to eventually get into some of the longer focal lengths but for the time being I am adding lenses based on usage and practicality. Your shooting desires/styles might be different than mine but looking at what you currently have I would certainly look into the 100-200mm range which seems to be lacking. If you have an interest in any portraiture type of photos then for sure this is a nice place to start. I just love the shallow depth of field and the blurred background.

The problem with the big lenses is that they will take a lot more effort and skill to use and if you want quality shots you need a very good, sturdy tripod and a lot of patience. Size and weight means you are less likely to use it as well.

I use and would recommend the following lenses for medium telephotos:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM
Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L USM
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 L II USM

If speed and size/weight would be a problem get the f/4 zoom which I have heard and read is also a very good lens.

If you like zooms this 70-200 is an invaluable all around lens. If you want primes then I'd recommend the 135mm.

These lenses are all very sharp and offer the versatility that you can usually get away with hand held and still get acceptable results.

Next to the wide angles this 85mm to 200mm is my favorite range for portraits. If you want to do wildlife or sports photography then go for the bigger lenses but be prepared to pay for quality.

Regards,
Doug

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
I use and would recommend the following lenses for medium telephotos:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM


Doug

Really? A mark II? Lucky you. It's not available for another month. Must be a preview version I suppose. Please can we see some shots taken with it.


Tony,
My choice would be a Canon EF 70-200mm F/4.0 L IS USM Lens. You have a 5D II which deserves good glass. It will compliment your 24-105 very well. You will use it more than any other choice (based on what you said).

Have a look on dpreview.com

Cheers

Nigel

That's got me thinking Nigel. How about using the 70-200 with a teleconvertor for the odd occasion when I need the extra magnification?

I confess I've never bothered with such devices in the past, but in this case it might be the most practical option. Looking at Peter's link, that 100 -400 is a bit of a monster! Yep, still got the Rangie but I'd still have to hump the thing around in my camera bag!

Tony,

if you are going to go 70-200, take a look at the 2.8IS - a beautiful lens and with 2.8 and IS, so good in low light. I am not sure how much extra it weighs (I have one it is quite heavy) over the F4, but it is as good a lens as you will find. Do not bother with the 2x converter, try the 1.4.

To be honest with you, the 70-200 rarely makes it onto my camera as 95% of the pics I take get satisfied with either my 24-105L or 24-70L. It is nice to have it there though and it can be very good for portrait work. When we had some family photos taken a few years back, the photographer used his 70-200 most of the time as it just got it that bit closer.

I must say the 24-105L takes a lot of beating - a brilliant lens!

OK, more food for thought.

For family portrait work the 70-200 is a great lens, but our new 'style' of shooting has me shooting with three primes 20mm(2.8), 35mm(1.8) and 50mm(1.8) on a Fuji S5 (Nikkor Mount) so they are equivalent to 30mm, 52.5mm and 75mm.

The f4 is a corker of a lens, as is its heavier brother the f2.8.

Bearing in mind two things:

- do you want a narrow depth of field ? Especially considering that a tele separates your subject from the background through perspective> In which case the f4 is plenty.

- If you are shooting in low light, today's latest DSLRs have incredible high ISO performance. Therefore, rather than shooting wide open at f2.8 you can shoot at f4 with the extra f-stop taken care of by upping your ISO setting.

It comes down to weight and cost !

btw the 24-70 is an exceptional lens, with 24-105 being the 90% use lens.

As I mentioned above I use the three primes for family shoots, my wife uses a 28-105.

quote:

Originally posted by shoot6x7:
btw the 24-70 is an exceptional lens, with 24-105 being the 90% use lens.

Shoot - I bought the 24-70 first but have hardly used it since I got the 24-105. Whilst I think the 24-70 is slightly the better lens, the extra length of the 24-105 just makes it more useful and it takes great photos. It is also lighter and smaller so gets to stay on the camera most of the time.

Tony

Don't forget to take into account most of us are using bodies that do not have "full frame" sensors, (1.6x in my case, 1.3x in Lontano's) so that colours our opinions of adequate length.

In my bag is a 70-200mm f4L and Canon 1.4x converter, that turns it into a 98-280mm f5.6L.

But as I use a 30D, with an effective 1.6x conversion factor, that is effectively either 102-320mm or 163-512mm!! (All these figures are to fill the frame, they don't bring anything closer. )

The 100-400mm is lighter than Lontano's 70-200mm f2.8 IS!!

You have the 24-105mm, which is my fave, and I find that my 70-200mm f4L (non IS) crosses over a bit too much, and then doesn't go far enough. I use the 1.4X, but you are back to multiple chop and change.

I'm still voting for the 100-400mm.

HTH

John

quote:

Originally posted by fixedwheel:
I find that my 70-200mm f4L (non IS) crosses over a bit too much, and then doesn't go far enough. I use the 1.4X, but you are back to multiple chop and change.

I'm still voting for the 100-400mm.

HTH

John

I think you are right John. The difference between the 24-105 and the 70-200 is normally just moving a few more steps forward nearer the subject - hence it is rarely used even when I take it out in my backpack. The 100-400 will get you close to some action you stand no chance of getting close to with the 70-200.

Good point John. I'm definitely leaning in favour of the 100-400...

the 24-70 and 70-200 are a classic 'pro' pairing ...

the 24-105 is usually a pro-sumer lens which can be used on camera 90% of the time ...

And Adrian ... YOU take the pictures not your camera/lens :-)

With the Canon L series it's a little different than Nikon.

The 24-70mm f2.8L is quite a bit heavier (950g) for the extra stop of speed, the 24-105mm f4L is lighter, (670g), better range, and has Image Stabilisation as well. Both earn the L designation.

Canon also do a 28-135mm IS as a mid range lens. I had one of those before I went to the 24-105mm.

The only non L lens I'd keep in my bag would probably be the first generation 50mm f1.8. Made from EOS launch in '87 for about 3 or 4 years. Stunning, the Mk2 is a toy in comparison. I'd love to see one of the fabled 50mm f1.0L that they did. That weighed 5 times the f1.8 Mk.1, and was 17x the price!

Cheers

John

quote:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM

Really? A mark II? Lucky you. It's not available for another month. Must be a preview version I suppose. Please can we see some shots taken with it.

Nigel,
Nice catch! This was a total mistake on my part. Of course, this should have read Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM.

Thanks,
Doug

quote:

Originally posted by fixedwheel:
With the Canon L series it's a little different than Nikon.

The 24-70mm f2.8L is quite a bit heavier (950g) for the extra stop of speed, the 24-105mm f4L is lighter, (670g), better range, and has Image Stabilisation as well. Both earn the L designation.

Canon also do a 28-135mm IS as a mid range lens. I had one of those before I went to the 24-105mm.

The only non L lens I'd keep in my bag would probably be the first generation 50mm f1.8. Made from EOS launch in '87 for about 3 or 4 years. Stunning, the Mk2 is a toy in comparison. I'd love to see one of the fabled 50mm f1.0L that they did. That weighed 5 times the f1.8 Mk.1, and was 17x the price!

Cheers

John

John,
You're right Nikon have not made a 28-105 'pro' lens, their discontinued 28-105 f3.5-4.5 is pretty damn good for a pro-sumer lens.

I did a side by side with a 28-70 f2.8 and had a tough time telling the difference for normal f8-16 aperture shots. Colour was pretty close too.

But my 70-200f2.8 VR is glorious for colour and clarity.

Thanks once again for all the very helpful advice chaps.

After much careful thought I've decided to go for the 70-200mm 4.0 L IS. I was initially leaning towards the 2.8 but noticed it's twice the weight of the 4.0 and given that I do a lot of hillwalking, the 1.6 kg of the 2.8 might get a bit tiresome after a few hours!

The long-term plan is to get the 100-400 as well. And a teleconvertor. And...

I think that's a great decision Tony. Hope it meets your expectations - I suspect with the more restricted zoom range that the performance will be superb. Did I mention weight.....

Peter

Great decision, there's a reason why this lens is usually backordered at my local camera stores ...

quote:

Originally posted by tonym:
The long-term plan is to get the 100-400 as well. And a teleconvertor. And...

Get the 1.4x first, or even with the 70-200mm. It weighs about the same as a 50mm and hides in a corner of the bag. In reasonable light f5.6 with the IS on is not too bad a compromise.

John

You could always go for this 1600mm Leica telephoto - if you have two million bucks to spare!

http://leicarumors.com/2008/12...eica-of-course.aspx/

Actually, I did buy one of those, but then I realised it didn't fit my Canon! Amazing I agree, but perfectly true!

The lens arrived today. Yipee!

I'm very impressed with it's lightness and generally good feel. I've yet to give it a proper workout but here's a shot I took earlier -



I'll wait a couple of weeks (so it slips nicely under SWMBO's radar) & get the 1.4x convertor.

quote:

Originally posted by tonym:
Actually, I did buy one of those, but then I realised it didn't fit my Canon! Amazing I agree, but perfectly true!

I did buy one of those but Customs, UK Border Agency, MI5 & MI6 confiscated it thinking it was a canon, don't know if I'll see it again

Tonym,
Are you sure that the 1.4 x converter is compatible with your EF 70-200mm f/4L IS lens? I have been looking at the very same lens myself. The Canon website does not list it as one of the L series lenses that can take the converter. Although the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM model is listed as accepting them, but at nearly twice the price of the non USM model. Can anyone shed any light on this?

Regards
Don

Hi Don, yes, the 1.4 convertor's fully compatible with the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM. Have a look at Amazon & the feedback on this.

I think you must be making a price comparison between the IS and non-IS lenses, the latter being some £400 cheaper than the IS job.