«

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?

Giulia wrote:
> Or, as I am not a pro and do not sell my photos, maybe I shouldn't
get so
> carried away and instead go for a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?

Whatever you think is best....

Or, as I am not a pro and do not sell my photos, maybe I shouldn't get so
carried away and instead go for a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?

It doe not necessarily have to do with selling pictures as much as it is
personal taste and expectations you are looking to achieve.

Yes the 70-200 2.8 L IS USM is expensive (1300 or so depending on where you
shop in the US) and at that aperature, you dont need to worry that you wont
have enough speed to work with.

They also make the same unit minus the IS and its a bit cheaper.

Below that is the f4 version if you are not going to go into low light
situations. If you are going to do sunset shots or need to take pictures
where flash is not warranted, consider the 2.8L.

I am in the same position right now shopping around and it can be hard to
decide whether to go with a fast lens and IS or go a bit more vanilla.(If I
have the extra $$ I would consider the L)

I also read today that the weight of the 100-400 is a bit much unless you
lift weights in your spare time. This is not to say that the 70-200 is a
lightweight.

<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>
> Giulia wrote:
>> Or, as I am not a pro and do not sell my photos, maybe I shouldn't
> get so
>> carried away and instead go for a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?
>
> Whatever you think is best....
>

I've been through the very same agonizing process, and finally settled
for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM as a do-everything kind of lens. Although
I've only had it for a couple of weeks, I've been most favourably
impressed with it's performance. The local photo dealer just called to
announce that my 1.4x has finally arrived, I haven't yet picked it up,
nor had a chance to use it.

>Or, as I am not a pro and do not sell my photos, maybe I shouldn't get so
>carried away and instead go for a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?

In view of your previous post, pro or not, I don't believe you will be
at all happy with the 75-300 low-end lens. I've seen comparative photos
posted on the internet, 70-200 vs 75-300; and even with low-rez internet
stuff, the difference between the two lenses is readily apparent.

The 100-400 is the other lens that captures my imagination, but that's
simply something that going to have to wait. While it seems to be a
great lens for it's intended purpose; the 70-200 is a lot more versatile
as a general-purpose lens.

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:58:33 +0100, "Giulia" <> wrote:

>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?

>I was thinking of maybe getting the 70-200 and if I need the extra
>focal length, add a 1.4x converter.
>Any advice?

That's exactly what I'd do if I could have only one of those two lenses
(wife and I have the 100-400, 70-200 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.. The extra
two stops comes in handy many times and image quality with the 1.4x is
still excellent.

Bill

On 4/21/05 3:58 PM, in article , "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?
>
>
I went through a similar decision process not long ago and elected to go
with exactly what you last mention. That is the EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM
plus the 1.4x converter. The lens is extremely sharp at all focal lengths
in the range. And being able to shoot at f2.8 is a real plus in low light
or for portraits where shallow DOF is desirable. With the 1.4x converter
only one stop is lost and full auto focus and IS is retained. And, the IS
*really* works! A negative about the lens is that it is fairly big and
heavy. Since it does not move when it zooms it is essentially at its longest
zoom position all of the time. I occasionally use the lens as a walking
around lens; when doing that it gives me a workout (I also use it on a
tripod a lot). I won't really knock the 100-400, but I don't like push-pull
zooms that much. If I wanted a 400mm lens I would probably go with one of
Canon's primes in that focal length.
Chuck

"Giulia" <> a écrit dans le message de
news:...
> 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?
>

The 70-200 f2,8 IS or not is a bear to carry around and I suspect the
100-400 is too. The 75-300 IS is a very capable lens and the one I had was
quite good. Obviously it's not as good as an "L" lens, but it is a lot less
expensive. There is a distinct advantage to havin a cheaper lens, you can
carry it around all the time and you will not go paranoid trying to hide it
like the white lenses.

Having said that, a very good compromise would be the 70-200 f4 with a 1.4X
TC. "L" quality, not so heavy and the range is almost the same 70-200 and
98-280, the only thing missing is the IS.

Another alternative is the 70-300 DO IS, I have one and I regret my
purchase. It's being repaired or adjusted for the fourth time, my old
75-300 IS was MUCH better. If you try that one, put it trough it's paces,
you could get a good or a bad one, I got the latter.

If I had to do it over again, I would get the 70-200 f4 with a 1.4X TC, save
a few bucks and later on get a 400 f5,6 L prime for those loooong shots.

Jean

I had the Canon 80-200mm f2.8 L before going digital. Since going
digital I have the f4 version and yes I wish it had IS. However, it is
optical similar and does a great job. I figure it weighs less then
half of its big brother and costs 1/2 as much. With digital I can
increase the ISO to make for the 1 stop loss in the lens maximum
aperture.

Art

wrote:

> I've been through the very same agonizing process, and finally settled
> for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM as a do-everything kind of lens. Although

It can't do everything. But what it can do it does do very well.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.