User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Tele Zoom

  1. #1
    Member BillW's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Tele Zoom

    We all go through agonies about lens choices. Ideally I think I would like the new 70-200 2.8L II but the best price today seems to be, well, about $2500.

    Compared to that, there is the old 70-200 2.8L for a thousand less, and possibly declining do we think?

    I am also pulled to the 100-400 4.5-5.6L, much slower but many report that it pulls in light very well. It is in the same price range as the old 70-200.

    All the above accept extenders. I see reports that the new 70-300 f4-5.6L does not and I haven't seen a price for it yet.

    My immediate use for it will be photography of cricket, say a batsman or bowler in the centre taken from over the sidelines. But I also have to think about use as a general travel lens. For that I am drawn to the 70-300 DO, which is so compact. But that is for another time.

    Any contributions to my thought processes please?

    Bill

  2. #2
    Member Cris's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Feb 2009
    Location
    Noosa
    Posts
    264
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I understand where you are coming from, the original 70-200 2.8 is, if you can get one is a great lens, I don't think there is such a thing as a bad copy, I haven't upgraded mine simply because I cant see how they could have made the image quality any better. The 100-400 is a great lens but don't go pairing it with an extender, they might be compatible but the resulting image quality loss plus the loss of auto focus you are better to just crop a bit harder(I have used both the 1.4 and the 2x with this lens).
    For what you are wanting to do the 100-400 should be excellent, you will easily pull the wicket in from the boundary and be able to zoom out to catch the fielding action. If you want to get closer I would suggest moving up to the bigger lengths but that is a whole new pricing level.
    Hope that is of some assistance.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Aug 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was in the same situation in June. I'd been watching the price of the 70-200 f2.8L IS, when along came the Series II, the price went up about $1000 and the Series I IS disappeared from the market. I had also considered the Canon 100-400, but a friend who has one told me that he had problems with the push-pull zoom mechanism sucking dust into the lens. After much research, and a bang for your bucks cost analysis, I went with the 70-200 f4L IS. This lens is quite simply outstanding, no complaints whatsoever. I am currently contemplating adding a 1.4x TC for additional reach.
    Mark

    Canon 70D w/Grip l Canon 60D w/Grip l EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM l EF 70-200 f4L IS USM l EF-S 15-85 f3.5-5.6 IS USM l EF 100 f2.8 USM Macro l EF-S 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS STM l EF 50 f1.8 II l Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM l 430 EX II Flash l Rode Stereo VideoMic l Manfrotto 055XPROB + 498RC2 Tripod l Benro MP-96 M8 Monopod l Lowepro Vertex 200 AW Backpack l Lowepro Pro Runner 300 AW Backpack l PS CS5 Extended l Lightroom 4.3

  4. #4
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    26 Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    376
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    all the lenses you mentioned are all L series lens and as such are all excellent quality. it all depends on how much you want to spend?
    personally speaking l have the 100-400mm L IS USM lens and it is simply fantastic and tack sharp. l wont replace it for quids. l have had it for over 2 years and love it. l used it several times in a dark concert hall for the kids and standing against the wall and in the far back, zoomed in and have taken some great shots with it, that even surprised me. it does allow quite a bit of light in.
    and the comment about pulling in dust is crap. l have NEVER had a problem at all with mine, or my friends one. And l have used mine in many states of Australia on my travels with no problems what-so-ever. Also adding a 1.4x Tc to a 70-200 F4 would increase the F Stop and would the auto focus still work?

    l suggest do the research yourself online and go into store and try out the lenses you want on your camera (most stores allows this) and make up your own mind.
    Last edited by PerfectPicture; 07-10-2010 at 8:17pm.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Aug 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by PerfectPicture View Post
    and the comment about pulling in dust is crap. l have NEVER had a problem at all with mine, or my friends one.

    Also adding a 1.4x Tc to a 70-200 F4 would increase the F Stop and would the auto focus still work?

    l suggest do the research yourself online and go into store and try out the lenses you want on your camera (most stores allows this) and make up your own mind.
    Adding a TC to ANY lens will decrease the aperture (ie let in less light). In the case of the 1.4x - 1 stop, 2x -2 stops.

    According to various reviews, Canon's specifications, comments from fellow forum members (see this current thread http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ad.php?t=67823), and trying it instore with my lens and body, there are no problems with autofocus as the the 1.4x takes it to f5.6. At this aperture AF still functions as it does at f4, the same can't be said for the 2x TC as it drops this lens down to f8.

    As far as PerfectPicture's comment about dust being "crap" that may well be his experience, but I can provide the OP with a copy of Canon's quote and invoice for repairs if need be.

    As suggested, do your own research, take your camera into a retailer and try some lenses. All the L range of tele zooms are exceptional, so whichever one you choose, it's unlikely you'll be disappointed. Chances are your budget will make the decision for you. I know if money hadn't been a consideration I would have gone for the f2.8L II.
    Last edited by unistudent1962; 07-10-2010 at 9:00pm.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Jan 2010
    Location
    Callala Bay
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi! Thought I'd add my two cents worth. Haven't done a lot of cricket photography, but I did spend some hours at Belrieve Oval in Tassie last December taking photos of the Pakistan v Tassie game there. Now I know that Beltieve is not as big, say, as the MCG, but I was using a Sigma 150-500mm lens and found that most of the photos I liked at the end of the day because they captured enough of the overall action were in the 300-400mm focal length (I was using a 40D with a crop factor of 1.6 - so 480-560mm in 35mm full frame terms). Given you haven't indicated what camera you are using, the Canon 100-400mm may be suitable.
    pod3009
    Canon 50D, Canon 40D, Canon EF-S 17-85, Canon 70-200 f4 IS USM, Canon EF-S 10-22, Tamron 90 mm f2.8, Sigma 150-500mm, Speedlite 430EXII

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    19 Aug 2010
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the 100-400 is quite a good lens when used in good lighting. I found the auto focus to be quite good, i used it on 50D, 7D, and 1D mk 3 and found a significant AF improvement of each camera to be matched by the lens. Being able to zoom from 100 to 400 quickly is nice. I think the most versatile would be a 70-200 2.8 II with a 2x TC for the excellent 4 stop IS, and aperture versatility. I have heard that the original 70-200 is not stunning with a 2x TC, but the mark 2 does very well. For price concerns, a 100-400 is quite good, and you can get quite cheap ones off ebay, and if second hand, can sell them for close to purchase price.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    you need at least 400mm for cricket
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  9. #9
    Member
    Threadstarter
    BillW's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Great replies. Of course I should have mentioned the lens is for my new 7D and I will be pairing this new lens with a 24-105L for everyday use.

    If I could get a good superseded 70-200 2.8L, is anyone using this lens with say a 1.4x extender? Do both the AF and IS still work with the extender on this older lens? I have seen the lens for about $1250 and the 1.4x II at about $330 in the usual places.

    With the crop factor, this lens would then take me from 112 without extender to 448 with extender. Am I right? If so, it becomes very versatile.

    I appreciate the advice to go instore and try but I just need these practical experiences with extenders, etc.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Aug 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm assuming it's the non-IS mark one for that sort of money?
    I haven't been able to find a new 70-200 f2.8L IS anywhere near that price.

  11. #11
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    26 Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    376
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bill you could be lucky now .. as the Aussie dollar exchange rate to the US greenback is around 99.5 Cents yesterday and around 98 cents today, meaning overseas orders would be much cheaper as its nearly a 1 to 1 dollar match. Now if only the websites reflect this exchange rate, time will tell You could be lucky.

    At UniStudent1962 - if you volunteering the canon quote on the repairs on the 100-400mm for your friend lens, l would be interested in seeing that. and understanding the circumstances behind how and why it happened for his/her lens?

    Bill as for the 70-200L F2.8 lens is a great buy as well, but wont have the reach you require without the TC extender as well. l take it your price is the NON IS version. as they say, the IS mode doesnt really do much for sports photography anyway, so you can go the 70-200L f2.8 Lens for around $1,200 in store. do you research and get quotes printed out and take in store, you will be surprised how the stores will haggle between the stores for your business if you employ the skills of Social engineering lol

    If your interested in getting the extender as well, tell the store that and try with and WITHOUT the TC extender with your camera and memory card, then review all the shots taken later that day on your computer to determine what Best works for you.

    Cheers

  12. #12
    Member
    Threadstarter
    BillW's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    24
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No online store seems to be offering the superseded IS anyway. Canon seem to have withdrawn it. Really appreciate all the replies. Any more still welcome but I may act quickly while the currency is in favour.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    26 Aug 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In the absence of the 70-200 f2.8 IS, have you decided which way you're going to go?

  14. #14
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    26 May 2010
    Location
    Avalon Beach, Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have recently started to use my old Sigma 1.4xTC with my 70-200 f/4 L IS and have had somewhat surprising results. Although you lose one stop, you don't lose auto focus. Here's a couple of shots I took a couple of weeks back of a female busker at Circular Quay.





    Of late, I have been seriously thinking of selling my aging Canon 300 f/4 L IS and buying the 100-400 as I think the 300 may have to recalibrated for use with my 5DII as the images are not as sharp as I would like.

    Sheila

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Jul 2009
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    659
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Have you tried micro adjusting the 300 on the 5d
    Jayde

    Honest CC whether good or bad, is much appreciated.
    Love and enjoy photography, but won't be giving up my day job.

    Flickr

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •