I would really appreciate your help on deciding which telephoto lens to buy. I have a Canon 5D (which if full frame). Ideally I am in interested in a focal length up to 300mm. Aside from budget, weight is one of the biggest issues in this decision, hence I am looking at the 200mm options as well. I have a EF 24-70mm L USM lens which weighs 950g and I think twice before carrying it around. The lighter the better really.
I have done some research and narrowed the possibilities down to my budget and considered the weight issues. I would really appreciate your knowledge sharing and opinions!
This is the short list so far (not in order of preference):
A) EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM - weight 760g - price ca. CHF 1'080
Not as fast as listing F in brackets below but does have IS
B) EF 70-200mm f4 L USM - weight 705g - price ca. CHF 567
Doesn't have IS like above - is IS really worth CHF 500 more?
C) EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L USM - weight 1050g - price ca CHF 1265
Heavy! the heaviest I would want to go to at a push. Also top of my budget. No IS
D) EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM - weight 720g - price ca CHF 1225
This combines the focal length I would really like with a light weight. I have no experience or knowledge of DO lenses. Quality? As good as L? Top of my budget, but I would get the two things I want most.
E) EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM - weight 630g - price ca CHF 380
The cheapest on my short list. Not an L. I was told in the shop that I probably wouldn't be happy with the quality of this as "it would be like putting inferior tyres on a Mercedes". I of course am attracted by the focal length and the weight
(F) EF 70-200mm f2.8 L USM - weight 1310g - price CHF 1188
Obviously a nice fast lens - that appeals - but don't really want to subject myself to that weight. It is in the list as it is only a little more expensive than A but is obviously faster and if this is far superior I would consider it. It doesn't have IS though)
What I want to photograph - candids from a distance/street (I do photograph quite a lot of people - just not in my project), wildlife (eg birds). I am completely new to wildlife photography and don't really know if it is my cup of tea or not.
Converters: I have no experience - but would probably make sense to bear in mind with this purchase?
Testing: I will get A or B to lend (not sure which one I am being lent) at the weekend. I could hire E next week. It is almost impossible for me to actually test any of the others.
Sigma: I would be open to Sigma options as I have a Sigma 105mm and really like it. Other than getting a catalogue pushed into my hands none of the shops here seem to carry a stock (I live in Switzerland) - but it could be ordered.
So which to go for?
I would be so grateful for your opinions, knowledge and experience. Even tell me which one to go for and why! (I can still form my own opinion from all the feedback) I thought buying a new piece of kit was supposed to be fun - I am just confused as to which one to go for at the moment!
Thanks a lot for reading all this and for your input!
Linda
You say you want a telephoto - but none of the ones you list are telephotos.
A telephoto would give better optical quality, would generally be lighter, and have greater sharpness - but to be honest, for street photography and candids I'd avoid a telephoto, far too restrictive, and go for something off your shortlist. - 'e' sounds nice - fast is a must for decent street work.
@styru Thanks a lot for replying! All the lenses on my list are listed as Telephoto zooms on the Canon website. But whatever the title, these are the ones that I am considering. E is your choice - great to get such a definite answer, thank you!
Well strictly speaking they are all zooms - telephotos are fixed focal length primes, and optically better in many cases - but yes, from that list 'E' - based on speed alone.
Obviously price also has a bearing - and I note you do ask "is IS really worth CHF 500 more?"
I'm off to google CHF's to see what they are!
Whatever you chose - I look forward to seeing the results!!
@styru ok i have to admit that i've not really given two thoughts as to what telephoto means but checking wiki :
"In photography and cinematography, a telephoto lens is a specific type of a long-focus lens in which the physical length of the lens is shorter than the focal length"
The 70-200 f2.8 is 19.81cms. So 198.1mm which is shorter than the focal length. The f4 version is 172.7mm. So that counts these as a telephoto zoom right?
@happysnap This is a tough one for me as i've only ever used the 70-200 F2.8 IS mk2 and I can say that the image quality it gives is nothing short of amazing. Mind you i use it for portrait work and always shoot at F2.8 and it gives amazing separation from the background and amazing clarity. I've not used the non IS version but i do hear that it actually has better bokeh than the IS. BUT.. lets be honest, its a big beast - you want to be supporting the lens and not the camera here.
I get the impression that if you want to shoot wildlife, the 200 may not quite have enough reach for you. That said if you're shooting candid portraits, I wouldnt be happy with an F4 - and this has nothing to do with it being faster. I just love the DoF that the 2.8 gives. I wouldnt even contemplate doing candids with a F4 or higher but thats me.
@toast well back in the days of real photography the convention simple - zooms - well zoomed, and telephotos were fixed focal length.
Then digital came along, and the addition of zooming compacts that were designed for the occasional user lead to a rewrite of the rules - that's why we now see zooms described as telephotos and cameras advertised as having 7 X zoom etc, rather than listing focal lengths.
I still love real telephotos - but their use is rather restricted compared to zooms.
This is the favourite of the telephotos in my collection:
@styru you know what.. you wouldnt want to be walkign around a train station with that at night. the rent a cops may throw you down on the floor and hand cuff you before you know whats going on!
@styru The others are right I'm afraid, a telephoto has always been a term used for a specific design of lens that gives you a focal length that is longer than the actual length of the lens.
It's so named because of a special group of elements in the lens, the telephoto group. The same design is also used in reverse for wide-angle lenses, to allow them to sit further from the film/sensor than the focal length would otherwise allow. In this case, the lenses are called 'retrofocus', although this term hasn't entered common photographic vernacular in the way that 'telephoto' has.
Telephoto lenses were around many many years before the first digital camera (they were originally invented around 1898), but before the telephoto group was widely used, if you wanted a long focal length zoom, you would end up with a huge lens -- for example, if you wanted a 500mm lens, you would need a lens that was at least 500mm long!
Most simple telescopes continue to use non-telephoto designs, although some of the more modern and compact designs do incorporate telephoto element groups.
The correct generic term for a lens with a large focal length is a long-focus lens, as opposed to a 'normal lens' and a 'wide angle lens'. A long-focus lens can be of telephoto or non-telephoto design (the non-telephoto designs being extremely long and unwieldy, as I mentioned), and can zoom or not zoom. As almost every long-focus lens available is now of the telephoto design, the term telephoto has somewhat taken over, regardless of whether the lens zooms or not.
A lens that does not alter focal length has, for the last 50 years or so, been called a prime lens (regardless of its focal length). This is a retronym, as in the earliest days of photography before zoom lenses were invented, all lenses were prime lens (and hence a specific name for a non-zooming lens wasn't needed). The first zoom lens was invented around 1902, although in terms of what we would recognise as a zoom lens, that started to be introduced in the 1950s.
The name zoom was actually invented by the lens company Zoomer -- I'm not sure if they trademarked it and it's become genericised, although it wouldn't surprise me. Here's the first production zoom lens for 35mm cameras, introduced in 1959, with some detail about the name: http://www.cameraquest.com/ekzoom.htm
Telephoto lens designs were already well-established lens designs by then, so it should come as little surprise that the second production zoom lens was a telephoto zoom: http://www.cameraquest.com/nf85250.htm
You can see from the quote in Modern Photography that the zoom term was already being used to describe this non-Zoomar zoom lens.
Of course, all this predates digital cameras by 15 years (and a lot more than that for any feasible digital camera). About the only thing that digital cameras have introduced is referring solely to a zoom ratio, without giving a focal length equivalent, although again, digital camera didn't actually introduce referring to zooms by their ratio -- it was very common on pre-digital point and shoot film cameras to refer to a zoom as a 2x or 3x zoom: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Advantix_F600
However, with digital cameras no longer being forced to stick to the 35mm or APS-C film sizes, and hence the actual focal lengths of the lenses having pretty meaningless values if you don't know the sensor size (such as 4.3mm-10.1mm), basic digital cameras have, sadly, resulted in focal lengths being relegated to a back page of the manual, rather than doing the much more useful thing of giving a 35mm-equivalent focal length on the camera itself, as used to be the case.
@happysnap After some photographic history, now a much shorter suggestion as to your lens dilemma. I would personally absolutely go with C, the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L USM.
200mm will almost certainly be too short for wildlife photography on a full-frame body, and the 70-300mm will give you a good amount of extra reach. You state that this lens doesn't have IS -- I can confirm that it absolutely does have Canon's latest 4-stop IS fitted, and it works extremely well.
This lens isn't compatible with teleconverters, but it will give a better result than most of the other lenses you list with a teleconverter fitted. The 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter would give you more reach, but you would lose considerable sharpness, and still have no IS.
@abirkill Wow thank you so much for all that interesting information Alexis! And also for your answer re which lens. Is the DO system equal in quality to an "L" lens? I didn't actually say that lens D doesn't feature IS (I listed it as having IS) - or have I misunderstood something? Do you see any disadvantages to this DO system? Really appreciate your very knowledgeable feedback!
To be clear, I mean the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lens, which you have listed without IS, but definitely does have IS (they've never done a non-IS L version of that lens).
@happysnap It is, but you've got to consider relative weight -- even the lightest (E) is 630g, and I'd agree with the guy in the shop, it's a miserable lens to use on a full-frame camera.
If you're accepting that you're going to have to carry a telephoto of some kind, then C is only an extra 420g over the worst telephoto on your list.
Hi... wow - I've learnt such a lot reading all the replies you've had.
I bought option D in 2006 when you could write what I knew about cameras and lenses on the back of a postage stamp. I was attracted by its compactness for overseas photographic trips and quality fine for street photography. I'm able to borrow option F if it's great quality I'm after - but it's so huge and heavy - far to conspicuous for street photography. Wildlife - I know that @rennes uses the 100- 400 and her wildlife photos are superb. good luck making a choice - definitely not easy.
@jocasta Thanks for your reply Jocasta! Do you still use your 'option D'?Are you still happy with it? Do you see a big difference in image quality between D and F? Thanks, yes, I have been in touch with Lisa re the 100-400mm - too heavy and too expensive for me and my current requirements.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
A telephoto would give better optical quality, would generally be lighter, and have greater sharpness - but to be honest, for street photography and candids I'd avoid a telephoto, far too restrictive, and go for something off your shortlist. - 'e' sounds nice - fast is a must for decent street work.
....................
Feeling Blue - my 365 days of one colour - Click HERE
Obviously price also has a bearing - and I note you do ask "is IS really worth CHF 500 more?"
I'm off to google CHF's to see what they are!
Whatever you chose - I look forward to seeing the results!!
"In photography and cinematography, a telephoto lens is a specific type of a long-focus lens in which the physical length of the lens is shorter than the focal length"
The 70-200 f2.8 is 19.81cms. So 198.1mm which is shorter than the focal length. The f4 version is 172.7mm. So that counts these as a telephoto zoom right?
@happysnap This is a tough one for me as i've only ever used the 70-200 F2.8 IS mk2 and I can say that the image quality it gives is nothing short of amazing. Mind you i use it for portrait work and always shoot at F2.8 and it gives amazing separation from the background and amazing clarity. I've not used the non IS version but i do hear that it actually has better bokeh than the IS. BUT.. lets be honest, its a big beast - you want to be supporting the lens and not the camera here.
I get the impression that if you want to shoot wildlife, the 200 may not quite have enough reach for you. That said if you're shooting candid portraits, I wouldnt be happy with an F4 - and this has nothing to do with it being faster. I just love the DoF that the 2.8 gives. I wouldnt even contemplate doing candids with a F4 or higher but thats me.
So for me - its the 70-200 F2.8 all the way.
Then digital came along, and the addition of zooming compacts that were designed for the occasional user lead to a rewrite of the rules - that's why we now see zooms described as telephotos and cameras advertised as having 7 X zoom etc, rather than listing focal lengths.
I still love real telephotos - but their use is rather restricted compared to zooms.
This is the favourite of the telephotos in my collection:
And you get a free 'selfie' thrown in..
https://www.facebook.com/TakingPhotographsIsNotACrime
It's so named because of a special group of elements in the lens, the telephoto group. The same design is also used in reverse for wide-angle lenses, to allow them to sit further from the film/sensor than the focal length would otherwise allow. In this case, the lenses are called 'retrofocus', although this term hasn't entered common photographic vernacular in the way that 'telephoto' has.
Telephoto lenses were around many many years before the first digital camera (they were originally invented around 1898), but before the telephoto group was widely used, if you wanted a long focal length zoom, you would end up with a huge lens -- for example, if you wanted a 500mm lens, you would need a lens that was at least 500mm long!
Most simple telescopes continue to use non-telephoto designs, although some of the more modern and compact designs do incorporate telephoto element groups.
The correct generic term for a lens with a large focal length is a long-focus lens, as opposed to a 'normal lens' and a 'wide angle lens'. A long-focus lens can be of telephoto or non-telephoto design (the non-telephoto designs being extremely long and unwieldy, as I mentioned), and can zoom or not zoom. As almost every long-focus lens available is now of the telephoto design, the term telephoto has somewhat taken over, regardless of whether the lens zooms or not.
A lens that does not alter focal length has, for the last 50 years or so, been called a prime lens (regardless of its focal length). This is a retronym, as in the earliest days of photography before zoom lenses were invented, all lenses were prime lens (and hence a specific name for a non-zooming lens wasn't needed). The first zoom lens was invented around 1902, although in terms of what we would recognise as a zoom lens, that started to be introduced in the 1950s.
The name zoom was actually invented by the lens company Zoomer -- I'm not sure if they trademarked it and it's become genericised, although it wouldn't surprise me. Here's the first production zoom lens for 35mm cameras, introduced in 1959, with some detail about the name:
http://www.cameraquest.com/ekzoom.htm
Telephoto lens designs were already well-established lens designs by then, so it should come as little surprise that the second production zoom lens was a telephoto zoom:
http://www.cameraquest.com/nf85250.htm
You can see from the quote in Modern Photography that the zoom term was already being used to describe this non-Zoomar zoom lens.
Of course, all this predates digital cameras by 15 years (and a lot more than that for any feasible digital camera). About the only thing that digital cameras have introduced is referring solely to a zoom ratio, without giving a focal length equivalent, although again, digital camera didn't actually introduce referring to zooms by their ratio -- it was very common on pre-digital point and shoot film cameras to refer to a zoom as a 2x or 3x zoom:
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_Advantix_F600
However, with digital cameras no longer being forced to stick to the 35mm or APS-C film sizes, and hence the actual focal lengths of the lenses having pretty meaningless values if you don't know the sensor size (such as 4.3mm-10.1mm), basic digital cameras have, sadly, resulted in focal lengths being relegated to a back page of the manual, rather than doing the much more useful thing of giving a 35mm-equivalent focal length on the camera itself, as used to be the case.
200mm will almost certainly be too short for wildlife photography on a full-frame body, and the 70-300mm will give you a good amount of extra reach. You state that this lens doesn't have IS -- I can confirm that it absolutely does have Canon's latest 4-stop IS fitted, and it works extremely well.
This lens isn't compatible with teleconverters, but it will give a better result than most of the other lenses you list with a teleconverter fitted. The 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter would give you more reach, but you would lose considerable sharpness, and still have no IS.
To be clear, I mean the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lens, which you have listed without IS, but definitely does have IS (they've never done a non-IS L version of that lens).
There's an excellent review of the lens here, including comparisons to some of the other lenses on your list: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
If you're accepting that you're going to have to carry a telephoto of some kind, then C is only an extra 420g over the worst telephoto on your list.
I bought option D in 2006 when you could write what I knew about cameras and lenses on the back of a postage stamp. I was attracted by its compactness for overseas photographic trips and quality fine for street photography. I'm able to borrow option F if it's great quality I'm after - but it's so huge and heavy - far to conspicuous for street photography. Wildlife - I know that @rennes uses the 100- 400 and her wildlife photos are superb. good luck making a choice - definitely not easy.