Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Telephoto Lense For Canon 20D. 100-400, or 70-200?

Reply
Thread Tools

Telephoto Lense For Canon 20D. 100-400, or 70-200?

 
 
Zenophobe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2005
Congrats on the EOS 20D and your consideration in bringing an L lens
into its family. At the prices they demand, these lenses are an
investment for many photogs, but the L's do hold a respectable resale
value.

Click around the following link and take in the atmosphere.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...s-Reviews.aspx

While the focal length of the 100-400mm can be an advantage, I feel
the 70-200mm is optically and functionally better. What you might
lose in distant shots (paparazzi or wildlife photographer?) you'll
gain in quality photos. The faster lens would be superb for low-light
situations. An excellent lens for general people shots, and what have
you. If I were to plunk down the change I'd go with the 70-200mm
f/2.8L IS USM in a heartbeat. I think this model has second gen. IS,
so is auto-sensing (turns IS off) when used with a tripod. Sweet.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:58:33 +0100, "Giulia" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Hi group
>
>I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom lens
>would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
>
>Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM,
>or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.


8-< snip >-8
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Stefan Patric
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2005
On Thursday 21 April 2005 13:58, Giulia wrote:

> Hi group
>
> I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom
> lens would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
>
> Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
> USM, or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
>
> The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
> obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the
> extra focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the
> push-pull operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have
> heard comes with it).
>
> So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra
> focal length, add a 1.4x converter.
>
> Any advice?


Which lens is "right" for you really depends on what you intend to use
it for -- Wildlife? Sports? Surveillance? -- and what other lenses
you own. But without knowing any of that, I'd go with the faster
70-200 lens, but get a matched 2X extender instead of the 1.4. The 1.4
only gives you a 98-280, not much different than the 70-200, but with a
2X you get a 140-400. Granted, it's a f5.6 equivalent, but f5.6 is
still a fairly fast aperture unless you're shooting in the dark.

And wait before getting an extender until you've had a chance to use the
lens a while -- several months, at least. You may find that you don't
need the extender at all. With your 20D that 70-200 is equivalent to
112-320 on 35mm. A 300 is a pretty long lens as general photography
goes. I've been shooting professionally for almost 30 years, and 99%
of all that I've ever been called on to shoot with 35mm has been done
with just 5 prime lenses: 24, 35, 50, 85, 180 + 2X. About once or
twice a year, I've needed longer or wider, which I rented. Most of the
time, it was a 600 f5.6 with a matched 2X.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-23-2005

"Stefan Patric" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:9pfae.63212$A31.56045@fed1read03...
> On Thursday 21 April 2005 13:58, Giulia wrote:
>
>> Hi group
>>
>> I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom
>> lens would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
>>
>> Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
>> USM, or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
>>
>> The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
>> obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the
>> extra focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the
>> push-pull operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have
>> heard comes with it).
>>
>> So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra
>> focal length, add a 1.4x converter.
>>
>> Any advice?

>
> Which lens is "right" for you really depends on what you intend to use
> it for -- Wildlife? Sports? Surveillance? -- and what other lenses
> you own. But without knowing any of that, I'd go with the faster
> 70-200 lens, but get a matched 2X extender instead of the 1.4. The 1.4
> only gives you a 98-280, not much different than the 70-200,


All true...but when you figure in the 1.6 crop factor, you get a similar
enlargement/field fo view to a 448mm lens on a film body. This is more than
enough for most people, and why I recently sold my 100-400 IS, keeping my
70-200 2.8 IS and 1.4x extender. I think he made the right choice (and he
followed the very advice I gave to another poster a week or two ago).


 
Reply With Quote
 
Confused
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-23-2005
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:33:13 -0700
In message <iBhae.3084$Zi.3036@fed1read04>
"MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> All true...but when you figure in the 1.6 crop factor, you get a similar
> enlargement/field fo view to a 448mm lens on a film body. This is more than
> enough for most people, and why I recently sold my 100-400 IS, keeping my
> 70-200 2.8 IS and 1.4x extender. I think he made the right choice (and he
> followed the very advice I gave to another poster a week or two ago).


I took that advise (from several off-line friends and verified
here)... the 70-200mm IS is a great lens. However, I still use the
75-300mm IS when I'm out-and-about in areas where famous people tend
to congregate. In Los Angeles the 70-200 lens screams "paparazzi".

The 75-300 IS much lighter and more versatile depending on your
location and shooting conditions. It was a good "first tele-zoom" for
me and I still use it. The softer image at over 200MM is good bokeh.

Jeff
 
Reply With Quote
 
DM
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-23-2005
Giulia,

Having used both the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM + 1.4 Extender for over a
year now I can safely say if you can afford to go for this combination
you'll not regret it. With the 20D's 1.6 multiplier you have an effective
reach of 448mm and I can confirm the 1.4 quality is fantastic - retaining
the image quality you'd expect from the original 'L glass' (unlike the 2x
extender).

Also (& maybe more important) if you don't you'll probably always wish you
had...

Regards

DM

"Giulia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi group
>
> I am looking for a telephoto lens for my Canon 20D. I think a zoom lens
> would suit me more than a prime lens, because of the flexibility.
>
> Therefore, I was thinking maybe either the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
> USM,
> or the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.
>
> The 70-200 sounds like a better lense for image quality, AF speed and
> obviously the wider aperture. However, the 100-400 wins on having the
> extra
> focal length (although I am unsure if I will get on with the push-pull
> operation of the 100-400 lens and the dust issues I have heard comes with
> it).
>
> So, I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra
> focal
> length, add a 1.4x converter.
>
> Any advice?
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Giulia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-23-2005
Cheers everyone for your comments/advise.



 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-23-2005
In message <9pfae.63212$A31.56045@fed1read03>,
Stefan Patric <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>And wait before getting an extender until you've had a chance to use the
>lens a while -- several months, at least. You may find that you don't
>need the extender at all. With your 20D that 70-200 is equivalent to
>112-320 on 35mm. A 300 is a pretty long lens as general photography
>goes.


200mm or 320mm(35mm equiv) is very short, though, for shooting small,
wild animals. If you shoot these things, you never have enough.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-23-2005
In message <iBhae.3084$Zi.3036@fed1read04>,
"MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>All true...but when you figure in the 1.6 crop factor, you get a similar
>enlargement/field fo view to a 448mm lens on a film body.


.... which is not meaningful at all, if you're not entrenched in 35mm
jargon. If you are not, a 400mm lens has exactly 1/2 the angle of view
of a 200mm lens; there is no 640- or 320- anything of significance.

This whole "equivalence" crutch is very disturbing to me.

A: I have a 400mm lens!

B: A has a 640mm lens!

C: A has a 1024mm lens!

D: A has a 1638.4mm lens!


Let's just call it what it is, a 400mm lens, and note the sensor size as
well, when necessary. What really should have become standard is some
kind of reciprocal of diagonal view angle at infinity, calculated from
medium diameter and focal length, scaled so that all practical lenses
have a value greater than 1.

One might say that someday all DSLRs will have 36*24mm frames, and that
the transition back would be easier if we used 35-mm equivalences in the
meantime. I'm sure that if that happens, there will be so many more
pixels that it would be better to think of it as a larger capture area,
which is what it really is. Basically, I am against "knowledge"
shortcuts that cloud understanding.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
JPS@no.komm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-23-2005
In message <EKjae.17926$(E-Mail Removed) >,
"DM" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>With the 20D's 1.6 multiplier you have an effective
>reach of 448mm


Why do we have to keep saying this? Do you even know that she is
entrenched in 35mm associations? If not, that is totally meaningless to
her. Personally, I am getting really tired of people saying, "that is
really like 1.6x mm", when all my thought and mental scaling is totally
independent of 35mm film.

Reach is only proportional to the reciprocal of the angle of view, or to
"35mm equivalence", in the viewfinder. In the captured image, "reach"
needs to be backed up by lens and medium resolution, or it is
meaningless. What good is a "reach of 1000mm" if it takes 6 pixels to
go from white to black, when the original analog scene did it in an
angle represented by 1/4 pixel? You didn't "reach" any more detail.

>and I can confirm the 1.4 quality is fantastic - retaining
>the image quality you'd expect from the original 'L glass' (unlike the 2x
>extender).


Most of the blame that goes to TCs is usually really from the main lens.
If it doesn't have more detail than the capture medium can capture
without the TC, the TC is only going to lose light, possibly forcing you
to a faster shutter speed for even more loss, giving you an image that
isn't much better than cropping an image from the main lens without the
TC (or even worse, if it forces the lens' aperture wide open in Tv
mode). Apparently, good TCs aren't really that hard to design and
build, as the main lens does most of the focusing work.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-23-2005

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <iBhae.3084$Zi.3036@fed1read04>,
> "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>All true...but when you figure in the 1.6 crop factor, you get a similar
>>enlargement/field fo view to a 448mm lens on a film body.

>
> ... which is not meaningful at all, if you're not entrenched in 35mm
> jargon. If you are not, a 400mm lens has exactly 1/2 the angle of view
> of a 200mm lens; there is no 640- or 320- anything of significance.
>
> This whole "equivalence" crutch is very disturbing to me.
>
> A: I have a 400mm lens!
>
> B: A has a 640mm lens!
>
> C: A has a 1024mm lens!
>
> D: A has a 1638.4mm lens!
>
>
> Let's just call it what it is, a 400mm lens, and note the sensor size as
> well, when necessary. What really should have become standard is some
> kind of reciprocal of diagonal view angle at infinity, calculated from
> medium diameter and focal length, scaled so that all practical lenses
> have a value greater than 1.
>
> One might say that someday all DSLRs will have 36*24mm frames, and that
> the transition back would be easier if we used 35-mm equivalences in the
> meantime. I'm sure that if that happens, there will be so many more
> pixels that it would be better to think of it as a larger capture area,
> which is what it really is. Basically, I am against "knowledge"
> shortcuts that cloud understanding.


I am not participating in some sort of "knowledge shortcut." I am well
aware of the issues at hand involving the differences between actual focal
length...and the perception of it via the crop factor. At this point in the
LONG history of discussions/arguments about the crop factor, etc., I think
you can calmly move beyond your disturbance due to the following:

The fact is that the crop factor performs the function most people are drawn
to tele lenses for--that of "spending their pixels" on a smaller portion of
a given scene...which is essentially what teles do--they "spend their light
capture" on a smaller portion of a scene, and then focus that light on your
film/sensor plane.

While it is most certainly true that your actual focal length is NOT changed
at all by the crop factor, the real-world application of this translates to
a use that is very similar in that you end up using all your resoution on
that small scene element.

Here's an example:

Assume you have two DSLRs.
Both are 8MP...but one is full-frame, and the other is a smaller 1.6 crop
factor sensor.
Now shoot an image of a distant bird, or other subject from the same
position.

Result:
The full frame sensor will render the bird with fewer of it's pixels because
it will "spend" many pixels on the surrounding scene. This will result in a
need to crop the image later in order to produce the same printed
enlargement...but with a smaler number of pixels at your disposal.

Meanwhile, the crop-factored 8MP sensor will spend a greater portion of it's
pixels on the bird, simply because it's using it's full resoution on a
smaller portion of the scene.

In this sense, you are accomplishing via "spent pixels" what only a longer
tele could have done on the full-frame sensor.
This is why it's not really as bad as you imply...to speak in these terms.

-Mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lense recommendation (alternative to Kit lense) for Rebel XT eh Digital Photography 12 10-28-2005 06:15 PM
Sony V3, telephoto accessory lense? clutch@lycos.com Digital Photography 1 03-20-2005 05:37 PM
2x telephoto lense question's Punch Digital Photography 7 02-13-2004 06:24 AM
Telephoto lense for Fuji S3000 Jeff Digital Photography 1 12-27-2003 04:26 AM
Telephoto lense for Fuji S3000 Jeff Digital Photography 0 12-27-2003 03:18 AM



Advertisments