Cannon telephoto lenses

Discussion in 'Photography - general' started by dUff, May 30, 2013.

  1. dUff

    dUff Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    246
    Location:
    Everybody Offline - looking good
    I currently have a 70-300 Cannon lense and think about upgrading to something with better autofocus , faster ( lets in more light )

    Looking at the White cannon lenses they are big money so i would be thinking second hand

    so if i went for a Cannon 70-200 f4 i am losing some focal length , i quite like the 300

    Anyone any experience of going from the black lenses to the white lenses , is it worth it ?
     
  2. WEZ

    Wez Official Friday thread starter

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    67
    Thought about sigma? My mates got the 70-200 f2.8 which is immense, and you don't lose that much zoom between 200-300, look at some focal charts.
     
  3. dUff

    dUff Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    246
    Location:
    Everybody Offline - looking good
    Ok cool will do , sounds good i will do some research

    Cheers
     
  4. WEZ

    Wez Official Friday thread starter

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    67
    If you've already got a canon 70-300, sounds like you know what you're doing anyway, so surprised you hadn't already considered it.
    If you want to check out photos from prospective lenses, check out www.pixel-peeper.com.

    I just bought the sigma 50-200 4.5-5.6 myself, I know it's too slow, but i'm poor and doing the whole dslr thing on the cheap! lol
     
  5. WEZ

    Wez Official Friday thread starter

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    67
    I was going to get the 70-300, but used this tool: http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php
    and thought, the difference between 200mm focal distance and 300mm was so minimal, say, compared to the difference between 100mm and 200mm ( I don't understand it, maybe it's a mind trick) that I didn't really need the extra 100mm, I don't know what you shoot though, and the canon 70-200 f4 on ebay is going for roughly what you can get the sigma 2.8 for, plus canon don't make a fast -300mm lens anyway unless you go prime.
    definitely go for the sigma!
     
  6. DEX

    Dex Paid Member Paid Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    497
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I used the 70-200 F2.8 EX DG for several years shooting motorsport. As Wez pointed out prices are comparable between the Sigma and the F4 L Series Canon. I'd rather have the extra stop of light (EX DG lenses are weather sealed too)

    If I needed the extra length I'd stick on either a 1.6x or 2x teleconverter. They took up approximately no space in my pocket, the 1.6x lost one stop (making a 112-320mm F4) and the 2x converter cost 2 stops (140-400 F5.6)

    A mate who used to use a Canon 70-200 F2.8L tried the Canon teleconverters and also the Teleplus ones. He said he had to go properly pixel peeping to tell any difference whatsoever, so he sold the Canon TCs and reverted to the Teleplus ones (all of 20-30 each)

    I have to say I was always very very happy with the Sigma 2.8 and the Teleplus TCs - so were Redline mag when they printed one of my shots full page on Page 3.
     
  7. richwig83 Forum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Likes Received:
    1
    Canons converters are 1.4x or 2x.

    Have you looked at the 100-400... very good lens, and no IQ degradation with converters.
     
    pascal77uk likes this.
  8. dUff

    dUff Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    246
    Location:
    Everybody Offline - looking good
    Was chatting to a keen camera person at work and they asked had i tried prime lenses not zooms
    And hence had a mini demo one lunch time , of a 300 non zoom and a teleconverter on a full frame camera

    Must say rather impressed

    Also found a place that hire out lenses , so going to try before i buy
     
  9. Crispy 8V CGTI Committee - Club Secretary Admin

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    116
    Location:
    NW
    I have both tamra & sigma 70-300 lense sigma has better pics even if the dia is less - both nikon fitment - bought the sigma as replacement after using it
     
  10. pascal77uk Paid Member Paid Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    Chelt
    The 100-400l is mega... And what sensor are you using As it will affect the length
     
  11. DEX

    Dex Paid Member Paid Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    497
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    By the time I could see any reduction in IQ I was looking at the pixels not the pictures.
     
  12. DEX

    Dex Paid Member Paid Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    497
    Location:
    United Kingdom

    I can't remember if you use a full frame or cropped sensor - but full frame shows up differences in lens quality far more than a crop sensor will.

    Primes will always have a better quality than zooms, but at the loss of a massive amount of flexibility.
     
  13. richwig83 Forum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Likes Received:
    1

    Spec savers?
     
  14. DEX

    Dex Paid Member Paid Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    497
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I'm sure that if you're obsessed with IQ above all else then you'd rather not use a TC.

    But then I'd assume you'll only ever use the very latest medium format camera, only use prime lenses, shoot everything in RAW etc etc etc....


    In the real world it's a trade off - getting the best quality for the money available. I found TCs to be far superior to cropping (digital zoom) as well as taking up a lot less room in the bag than another lens and giving a whole heap of flexibility. Looking at the images with and without the TC (zoomed in lens without, zoomed out lens with) I found I was having to look very closely to spot the difference in IQ. Far closer than you look if you want to actually see the picture.

    One of the guys I regularly used to shoot motorsport with had a whole bag of Canon L series lenses, as well as several high end Canon D-SLR bodies. He used the Teleplus TCs as he'd compared them, back to back, with Canon's ones and found the difference was so small as to be negligible (in everything except price!)


    I'm assuming that Tris doesn't have money to burn and wants to get the best value he can (or he'd just buy one of everything, compare them and throw away the ones he didn't like lol )
     
  15. StuMc

    StuMc Moderator and Regional Host - Manchester Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Likes Received:
    268
    Location:
    50? 20` 47 N - 06? 57` 57 E
    If its "Lenses for Hire" I can thoroughly recommend them. Awesome to deal with (and you don't need to pay a lens-value deposit either)
     
  16. stella

    stella Forum Junkie

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    East Midlands
    It might be cheaper to subscribe to PhotoShop CC, which has a magic new feature that takes out camera shake, then all your photos will be sharp. Then buy a rattle can of white paint and spray your 70-300 white and then all the Canon lens snobs will think you have an L lens. Much cheaper than buying new lenses and TCs lol

    Sorry if that's not very helpful, but I'm a Nikon person and have Nikon primes, except for an awesome Tokina 11-16mm F2.8, that has taken some prize-winning and published photographs (unfortunately they were taken by the previous owner of the lens and not me :cry: )
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice