Canon Zoom Lens

[x332race]

I have a Canon 400D and a Tokina 28-70mm 1:2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro lens. I bought this set up to take pictures of horses show jumping both in and out doors. The combination has been successful but I find that I could do with a bit more "reach" sometimes, so I am considering a longer zoom.

I found an old thread on this forum that seemed to be recommending the Canon 70-200mm F4 L series as a very good lens and not as heavy as the F2.8 version.....I suspect I will be using the lens outdoors and that weight could be an issue. Also the Camera seems to perform well using higher ISO settings.

Also, due to the need to use high shutter speeds, I suspect that I will not need the IS version.

Would the Canon 70-200mm F4 L be a good choice given the subject mattter?

I am aware that companies like Sigma, Tokina etc make zooms of similar quality...are these any good?

 

[Mark300SL]

70-200 F4L is a great lens - very good bang for buck as far as L series lenses go

Indoors you may suffer because the F4 max aperture will not utilise all the high speed focus points which may be useful when taking horse pics indoors.
The high speed points need F2.8. This wide aperture activates the higher autofocus sensitivity mode for certain focus points in many Canon bodies

Have you considered the excellent Canon prime lenses ?
I use a 200mm F2.8L prime lens which is superb, and also a 135mm F2. In your position I would try the 135mm because when its combined with a 1.4 converter you get a useful 189mm F2.8 lens as well

These 2 lenses are considered amongst Canons very best for image quality and the 135 for portraits is just sublime. If you take any portraits of the Mrs however - be prepared for a black eye as this lens picks out skin imperfections that you just don't see with the eye


You will never be disappointed with the 70-200 F4 L, but if you can live with a fixed focal length then the 135 F2 L is a true gem that will suit indoor shooting of moving targets much better than the F4 lenses.
Finally - as far as the 70-200 is concerned, if it were me I would splash the extra cash to get the newer uprated IS version as this seems to deliver the goods even better than the very impressive original but there is a significant price penalty to pay!


As a rank outsider the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 is a great cheaper lens but I sold mine because it was just physically to big and heavy to take as hand baggage without compromising the rest of my kit

I travel with

5D
30D
24-105L Zoom
12-24 Tokina
85mm F1.8
50mm F1.8
200mm F2.8 or 135mm F2
Canon or Tokina 1.4x converter
Speedlight flash
Cokin ND/Split grad filters
Samsung NC10 laptop, USB HDD and card reader

That lot is a full carry on allowance and there is no room for a heavy 70-200 F2.8


HTH


Mark

 

[Mark300SL]

Found a couple of my 200mm shots from Ollys GTG last year

135 is just as sharp and some say sharper, but the shorter focal length might suit your purpose better.

You are welcome to try mine if we are ever in the same area


Mark

 

[x332race]

Mark
Thanks for the feedback.....I have the Tokina 28-70 F2.8 lens which I find ok for indoor areas and gives me the "reach" I need.....its outdoor that I need a longer lens for.
The additional weight of the F2.8 over the F4 70-200mm is leaning me towards the F4 (the F4 is half the weight of the F2.8!!) & surely IS is not of much relevance when taking action shots?

Your photos look great but I am not sure if a fixed focal length is what I need...I will give it some thought!

 

[219]

I can also reccomend Sigma lenses .

I have a number of Sigma EX lenses both at home in my Pentax kit and at work in my Nikon kit ; I also bought my daughter a Sigma 70-300mm zoom lens from their cheaper range ( f4-5.6 IIRC) for her Pentax kit , this is a good lens producing nice sharp pictures , and whilst not all that fast this is still very good value at £150 or so in most shops .

A lot of wildlife enthusiasts swear by the 'Bigma' 50-500 lens , but at something like £750 it is pricey .

I agree about primes being better if less convenient than zooms . My SMC Takumar 135mm f2.8 is still one of my favourite lenses , great for portraiture on film if a little long for APSC digital bodies .

 

[x332race]

The equivalant Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 zoom can be had for about the same price as the Canon 70-200mm F4 but will is it capable of producing the same qulaity photos as the Canon?

 

[James Rothwell]

The Canon L series are fantastic, I've got a EOS 50D and the 70-200 F4L rarely ever comes off.

I do quite fancy the F2.8 model with IS but the extra weight would mean it isn't a very efficent walk about lens.

 

[Mark300SL]

Mark
Thanks for the feedback.....I have the Tokina 28-70 F2.8 lens which I find ok for indoor areas and gives me the "reach" I need.....its outdoor that I need a longer lens for.

If its outdoor use then then the 70-200 F4 will almost certainly fill the void and it does overlap quite nicely with the Tokina in focal length.

I was thinking of large indoor arenas

& surely IS is not of much relevance when taking action shots?

The IS isn't actually the point here, though it will help in low light situations with relatively stationary subjects. The point with the IS version of the lens is that it is a massive upgrade in image quality over the original very good spec. The lens has been redesigned for faster focus speeds and improved image quality. the image stabiliser is just the icing on the cake
I frequent a couple of very good photo forums and they have all seriously praised the updated IS version, though as I have said a lot in this thread the stock 70-200 F4 is still a great lens.


All said I will still recommend a prime lens, despite my love of L zooms. My 24-105L almost lives on my 5D but for those times I need the longer focal lengths I still turn to the 200mm with or without the 1.4x as opposed to a zoom.




Finally - remember that decent glass hangs around a long time after the camera bodies are supposedly redundant, so I always consider lens purchases as very long term as opposed to the 3-4 year lifespan I give bodies.



Mark

 

[x332race]

Trouble is that the addition of IS effectively adds £400 to the price of the lens and for that price (£800 ish) I could be considering the f2.8 version!!

 

[MD5]

The additional weight of the F2.8 over the F4 70-200mm is leaning me towards the F4 (the F4 is half the weight of the F2.8!!) & surely IS is not of much relevance when taking action shots?

Actually, you will be able to double your shutter speed using an f2.8 lens, as it lets in twice the amount of light as an f4 at full aperture. This may be the choice between 1/30th and 1/60th for example, which then becomes very relevant in extreme (but unlikely) circumstances.

 

[x332race]

Actually, you will be able to double your shutter speed using an f2.8 lens, as it lets in twice the amount of light as an f4 at full aperture. This may be the choice between 1/30th and 1/60th for example, which then becomes very relevant in extreme (but unlikely) circumstances.

Actually, I am more concerned about being able to use higher shutter speeds to stop action, but I guess the same argument holds....may be the difference between being able to use 1/500 rather than 1/250.

As a test, I set up my camera today...its overcast but not excessively dull....using a shutter speed of 1/500 I had to set a ISO of 800 just to get an aperture of F4.0......the extra stop to F2.8 would be of benefit today even outside.....but then that would cost an extra £400....
Perhaps I will see if I can get a reasonably priced 2nd hand Canon 70-200mm F4 L and see how I get on....If i find I need to upgrade, I should not loose much on it.

 

[crockers]

Surely photography is like Hi-Fi -- and comes under the rule of diminishing returns disproportionate to cost, or non reciprocal gains - or whatever...

...so you have to set your max budget and get the best you can for that..

 

[MD5]

I chose those speeds to exaggerate the point, and they would dictate the need of a tripod with a heavier lens. Even in today's light with your exposures, at 100 ISO you could only shoot at 1/60th. So many variables!

 

[Mark300SL]

Second hand L glass normally holds its money very well, with the dollar stronger against the pound the cost of lenses has risen dramatically. You could get a 70-200 F4 from Hong Kong 2 years ago on ebay for under £300 + postage - now they are over £400!

Some of my lenses are worth more now than when I first got them at just over $2 to the £
My 24-105 F4 IS was under £600 delivered to my door and that wont be repeated in the next couple of years!
Finally - I held out for ages and got a 28-70 F2.8L that needed a £120 service (dust) for under £200 a couple of years ago and that lens is probably worth £450+ now

 

[Smatt]

I have quite a few lenses- sigma EX lenses from the past- good, but not as good as the canons, & also some non-L canon lenses.
Recent acquisitions include 24-105 IS f4L & 70-200 IS f2.8L - both highly recommended, producing some great imaging.
I know these are not lenses you are specifically looking at, but the L quality is the same across the range.

For your stated needs, the faster aperture is likely to be most beneficial, but will (obviously) depend on the aperture you are taking the picture at. If you do sometimes take handheld shots in lower light, then the IS would come into its' own with the latest versions offering 3 stops advantage & could mean the difference between packing up or keep shooting another 1/2 hr (or use a tripod!). I am sure you know( & please forgive me if this is all old hat to you!) that at 200mm, you need a shutter speed of 1/200th or greater with a standard non-IS lens. Because of the telephoto effect on narrowing of depth of field you may often want a slightly smaller apperture, which will significantly affect the speed unless it is a very bright day. This is where the IS will give an advantage with handholding, meaning you can handhold at approx 1/30-1/60 even at 200mm.
If you are panning, then high shutter speeds are not such an issue anyway.
The other advantage of the faster apertures is that you will have a much brighter viewfinder & the focusing speed will be faster as extra sensors are utilised at F2.8. For sports/action this will be a particularly strong advantage.
They are heavier, but there are so many advantages to the faster lenses.

The dust seals & build quality are better on all the L lenses.

The advantage of Canon over non canon is that they will always be compatible with any canon EOS camera. Often independent lenses will not work with newly released canons - to make them work, they need to be re-chipped by the manufacturer (this will only be a problem when you buy a new camera, but you are bound to sooner or later) -I had to get 2 sigma EXs re-chipped. The old Tokina ATX Pro I have can not be re-chipped, so is going to go on ebay when I get round to it.

Camera Price Buster - Canon Lenses - a good comparison site

Spend as much as you can on the lens & you are unlikely to be disappointed.
Hope that is some help

 

[x332race]

Thanks for replies....all very helpful...

Only other lens to consider is the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II. This seems to give similar results as the canon L lenses in tests although concerns raised regarding focusing abilities.....any comments?

 

[Mark300SL]

The only problem I ever had with the Sigma weas its physical size
Image quality was very good, and although not quite L standard it was more than acceptable.
If you are not ultra serious and not a lens snob then the Sigma will serve you well.


200mm 2.8 is about 750g in weight and thats about the same as the slower 70-200 F4 zoom. The very nature of a versatile zoom lens means that the equivalent 2.8 zoom weighs twice as much and takes up more bag real estate. Sigma 2.8 Zoom is almost exactly the same size and weight as the Canon version.


For what its worth I will one day buy the 70-200 F4 IS as it is the ideal mix of IQ and size/weight for my travels, but if you can hand hold the Sigma all day without it becoming tiresome then it could be a good choice.

If you are considering one of the more expensive lenses then maybe try and hire one for the weekend ?


Mark

 

[Smatt]

My Sigmas were older(7-8yrs) EX lenses, so cannot give a valid comparison against new Canons.
The canons certainly 'snap' into focus very well & are much faster, but maybe the newer EXs are too.
Forgot I also got a canon 28-70 IS EF-C F2.8 recently for spare body - this is for compact image sensors only- good but not quite an L lens, mainly in terms of dust seals.
Personally I don't think I would buy anything but Canon L lenses now, simply for the sheer quality & build. An exception might possibly be a fisheye which really are silly money if one buys Canon (for a lens used less often).
If it is just a hobby, the Sigmas should be fine, but if you are taking things more seriously, I would recomend going down the 'L' route.

A minor point to consider, is that if you are in public, L lenses give you more credibility in the eyes of other photographers (amateur or pro). All have the red ring, so are immediatly recognisable; the telephotos are (off)white to reduce the effect of heat on the lens' optical properties. This is particularly relevant with weddings, where everyone jostles with the pro to get the 'best' photo & may sneer if they have better kit than the pro!
Of course, it's not all about equipment but it is unfortunately a consideration; technique & skill are more important!

 

[x332race]

Its just a hobby for me so not worried about looks.....just want to be able to get nice photos! For me, the Canon 70-200mm F4 and the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 are at my budget level...These are likely to cost in the region of £400 and I cannot really justify paying the extra for the Canon F2.8 or for IS.

 

[BTB 500]

I have the 70-200 F4L, as mentioned it's a practical 'walkabout' lens ... which the 2.8 isn't IMHO.

I have an old CCS case ('Warthog' I think) that takes my 20D with the 70-200 fitted, which is very handy.