Best Canon telephoto for hand-holding

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Bob - 21 Jul 2005 00:15 GMT

I have a 350d and a EF70-200 4L, and love the quality of the shots
I've taken with it. I want to be able to zoom-in more though, and
hand-hold in low light, but I don't want to compromise too much on
image quality. At first the EF75-300mm F4.0-5.6 IS sounded ideal, but
I've read bad reviews and been unimpressed by a friend's photos
taken with that lens. I tried an EF100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS and an
EF70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, but the 100-400 was too heavy to hold
for long and I've read mixed reviews of the quality of the DO lens.
Both lenses are a bit pricy. The other L series lenses also tend to be
a bit on the heavy side.

My current inclination is to buy a 1.4x teleconverter to use with my
70-200, but that would leave me short of 300mm, with no image
stabilizer and a wide-end of 100mm when it's fitted. On the plus
side it'd be the lightest way to get L glass at 280mm.

What I'd *like* is a light EF70-300 4L IS, with the option to attach
a 1.4x teleconverter at a later stage, but sadly such a lens doesn't
exist.

Any suggestions?

Reply to this Message

Paul Bielec - 21 Jul 2005 13:26 GMT

> I have a 350d and a EF70-200 4L, and love the quality of the shots
> I've taken with it. I want to be able to zoom-in more though, and
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Any suggestions?

What do you want to photograph with it?
Have you considered using a monopod?

Reply to this Message

Bob - 23 Jul 2005 11:16 GMT

Disappointments have been:

Shooting birds from a watching booth. We were simply too far from them
for the 200mm to cope. Shame! Saw a fantastic woodpecker.

Shooting indoors from my seat at a wedding. I was able to zoom in
enough, but I couldn't lean on something for some of the shots, and
those ones were very blurry despite using f4 and ISO 1600. A
monopod/tripod wouldn't have been practical as the seats were very
close.

Taking a photo of a dragonfly about 3 metres away. Again, the
dragonfly was just too small in the output image to be any good. My
friend's 12x zoom compact took some lovely half-frame photos of it.
More zoom needed!

I probably will get a monopod. Tripods are impractical for me as I
don't have time to set them up. I'm not convinced I'd have time
with a monopod either. Are they fast to set up?

One possibility I'm considering now is getting the 1.4 converter for
normal shooting and the 75-300 IS for low light shooting. Means
lugging around two lenses with about the same focal length though.

Reply to this Message

Paul Bielec - 25 Jul 2005 19:24 GMT

> Disappointments have been:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> normal shooting and the 75-300 IS for low light shooting. Means
> lugging around two lenses with about the same focal length though.

BTW, I have the 70-200 f/4 L as well and I love it as walk around lens.
The 1.4x is on the shopping list. However, it will still be too short
for nature photography.

Reply to this Message

Paul Furman - 23 Jul 2005 16:04 GMT

> What I'd *like* is a light EF70-300 4L IS, with the option to attach
> a 1.4x teleconverter at a later stage, but sadly such a lens doesn't
> exist.

Heh, I don't suppose a 300 IS prime exists either <g>. You could sell
the 70-200 4 & get a 2.8 IS with 2x TC, I have the equivalent for a
Nikon & it's very useful.

Signature

Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Reply to this Message

Bob - 25 Jul 2005 19:05 GMT

I wondered about the EF300mm f4.0 L IS USM (1190g), but it's a bit
expensive and inflexible.

Unfortunately the EF70-200 f2.8 L IS USM weighs a whopping 1570g. Add
on a 2x tele and that's 1835g! The 100-400 was 1380g, and that seemed
too heavy to use as a walk-around lens to me.

I'm seriously considering getting just a 1.4x for now, as it's likely
to be useful in the future too. I could also save up for an EF 200mm
f/2.8L II USM + 2x (total 1030g) for when I don't need to zoom out.

Reply to this Message

Bob - 25 Jul 2005 19:36 GMT

Reply to this Message

prep@prep.synonet.com - 28 Jul 2005 21:15 GMT

> I wondered about the EF300mm f4.0 L IS USM (1190g), but it's a bit
> expensive and inflexible.

The drawback is the length. Bit long for most situations where you
need to move around.

> Unfortunately the EF70-200 f2.8 L IS USM weighs a whopping 1570g.
> Add on a 2x tele and that's 1835g! The 100-400 was 1380g, and that
> seemed too heavy to use as a walk-around lens to me.

So use a 600L, then the 70-200 will be a nice lightweight break ;) Or
a 80-200 2.8L.

> I'm seriously considering getting just a 1.4x for now, as it's likely
> to be useful in the future too. I could also save up for an EF 200mm
> f/2.8L II USM + 2x (total 1030g) for when I don't need to zoom out.

Never get fit with that one.

Signature

Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Reply to this Message