I'm looking for a zoom that starts above 50 and ends around 200/300mm. As much as the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS L would make me all goosebumpy - it's a little out of my price range.

Looking at the 70-200 f/4 L 2nd hand, but wondering if anyone has any decent experience with anything else? Heard the Canon 75-300 MkIII is awful and that some of the Tamron and Sigma zooms in that range get very soft at 250-300.

Unfortunately this is a focal length that I don't have any friends or colleagues who can lend me anything from their own stash to test out. Obviously the wider it'll go the better, but that does get you into silly money.

For those more pro amongst us ( - you know who you are) would you suggest the f/4 L zoom? or save for a few more months and try for a second hand f/2.8 without IS (if I were going for an L)?

One rule with zooms..... Generally, the wider the range, the poorer the image quality

This is my preference FWIW if you are using a Canon.

Canon 70-200 f2.8Lis

Canon 70-200 f4 Lis

I like the 2.8 because it gives me more options - and the image through the viewfinder is twice as bright as the f4.

Having said that, the f4 is a brilliant piece of glass that will not disappoint.

whilst other makes are OK - they really cannot match the 'L' lenses.

I would tend to agree with what Scuff has said.

I have the Tamron 18-250mm lens on my Pentax K10D. As a multifunction lens it is fine and a remarkable piece of engineering, as a high quality photgraphic tool it has its limitations.

I get dark corners, if not dark pictures, and I seem to spend the majority of my time taking pictures and fighting the limitations of the lens.

Needless to say it will get upgraded in the near future.

Either 50-500mm f4-f6.3 Sigma or my current preference a 100-300mm f4 Sigma with the addition of a 1.4x converter if I am a little too short.

Cheers guys;

@Scuff - I'm not after a large range, just something that's useful for portraits and some mid-range stuff, probably indoors (maybe stage if I can get a 2.8). Would you not recommend the non-IS versions of either of those two L's then? Unfortunately I am undervalued and underpaid at work (who isn't) and a minimum of two meals a day take precedence over my photography :(

@Hedge - I'm not really looking to go as far as 500mm just yet. Maybe when I get a bit better at the whole 'taking photos' thing I'll consider a 500 and some birdwatching or that sort of stuff. 300 is the longest I'd really use, but as I mentioned I keep hearing that a lot of zooms that end in 300's tend to be a bit naff and a prime wouldn't be useful for what I do. Hence the look-see at the 70-200 which I've only heard good things about, even if it may end up a little short.

The swap from the kit lens to the Tamron 17-50 was immense, and I can imagine how much better an L lens would have been. I know all the talk of 'its the photographer not the equipment' but I'm not a particularly good photographer and the lens has made me better - even I can see that. I'd rather go for good glass than something cheaper that will need replacing in the future. I just realise that the good glass is out of my budget, so a compromise that still keeps quality is where I'm looking (refer to @Scuff question )

Mort, if your budget is low have you thought about a second hand Sigma 70-200mm F2.8? Ive got one and havent regretted buying it. Would love some L glass but couldnt afford it at the time.

this was taken with it

and this one on Saturday, he got wet

Rider of the Storm

That’s some picture:thumbup:

I too have the Sigma f2.8 70-200mm and for the money I think it is a great VfM lens, but I really want a 70-200 F2.8L IS Canon lens on day. The Sigma works well on crop frame cameras. I have read (Scuff may know if this is true, but there again I don’t know if he has C size cameras) that the 70-200mm f2.8 Canon is a little soft sometimes on the crop frame Canons.

Bloody heck! That Canon 70-200 f2.8 Lis is rather expensive. Anyone got any shots using that lens?

Bloody heck! That Canon 70-200 f2.8 Lis is rather expensive. Anyone got any shots using that lens?

I think it’s only Scuff that can afford it. Mind you it’s only a 200mm lens on his monster camera, it would be a 320mm on mine:)

Bloody heck! That Canon 70-200 f2.8 Lis is rather expensive. Anyone got any shots using that lens?

There's 3580 examples here:

Full-size sample photos from Canon 70-200mm F/2.8

Bargain for £1200 I say!

There's 3580 examples here:

Full-size sample photos from Canon 70-200mm F/2.8

Bargain for £1200 I say!

Trouble is I bet most of the people who use this lens have full frame cameras. Although this may be changing with the improvements of C sensor cameras. The new 50D looks very good in preview. Similar noise to the 40D but silly number of pixels.

You're right. From scanning a few pages, most popular seems to be the 5D. But if you see the search filtering at the top of the page, you can select which camera you want to see results from.

For example, that lens, using a 350D: Advanced Search

This will always be the issue with glass such as this. Not a lot of people are going to invest in something that expensive, without buying an expensive body as well.

Steve

You're right. From scanning a few pages, most popular seems to be the 5D. But if you see the search filtering at the top of the page, you can select which camera you want to see results from.

This will always be the issue with glass such as this. Not a lot of people are going to invest in something that expensive, without buying an expensive body as well.

Steve

One or two experts are now saying that cameras like the 40D are an equal of the 5D in IQ and superior in many other ways, so perhaps C type cameras are now good enough at the top end to warrant the big L glass lenses. Plus once you have bought them you own them for when you buy Scuffs old 1mkII

I would love to replace my Sigma with one but finances don't allow it at the moment. :(

Yes, you can tell the difference between images taken with the 5D and the 40D using the same lens. Harrumph!

Yes, you can tell the difference between images taken with the 5D and the 40D using the same lens. Harrumph!

Hmmmm I won’t argue with a man that sounds like he may have a 5D:D. I did have a play with one in the summer and although I loved it, I think my 40D is more versatile for my needs at the moment. Plus I can’t afford to buy the longer lenses I would need:(

Hi Guys

I have the 70-200f2.8 as you have guessed. I also have the 1dsMkII and a 1DmkIII

Lets not get too hung up on quality. Yes, if I spend time and effort on producing a shot, I really want the kit to produce as fine a quality as it can to match my efforts. BUT it is not the be all and end all.

Concentrate on getting evrything else right and a stunning shot will result on any lens. It will just be cleaner, sharper and more contrasty and nuetral in colour with and expensive lens.

Touching on the cameras, the MKIII does not have the resolution of the 1dsII but the images are very nearly as good - but in a different way. Horses for courses. The 'amatuer' cameras (no insult intended) really ony fall down in places which may not actually worry you, and will all produce good saleable images. Advantages of the 'pro' cameras include, much much much better focussing, weather sealing (with 'L' lenses) very robust. Indeed built to work under harsh conditions such as trying to get a picture of a cat getting a bath!!!!!

Mort - If you can afford IS, get it, no question. It has helped me get shots that would have been very difficult without it. Sure, it wont help freeze fast action (only wide aperture lenses do that). But consider this - if you could use a tripod for every shot, you would be amazed how much sharper your shots were. There is camera shake at every shuuter speed, obviously less the higher the speed. So I have IS on all of the time. The 2.8 70-200 has been shown to be a bit softer that the f4 - but hang on, it is all relative. The f4 is a dog compared to my 300 or 500. But it is all relative. The all produce the goods.

On a final point. If you only produce really crappy shots (and we all do that sometimes), but enjoy using good quality kit, that is just as relevant.

Get out ther and shoot away, maybe send some off to the agencies and make a few quid. Anyone CAN do it with practice and a willingness to learn and improve. I still learn from every image I take or view. And I've been doing this for 35 years :eek:

Oh... and if you want, I can post some of my images from the 70-200 f2.8Lis.

Hmmmm I won’t argue with a man that sounds like he may have a 5D:D. I did have a play with one in the summer and although I loved it, I think my 40D is more versatile for my needs at the moment. Plus I can’t afford to buy the longer lenses I would need:(

Walk closer :P

You should see good wide angles on the full fram or 1.3 crop :P

Joking aside, you really do not need anything more than the 40D - great camera.

I think it’s only Scuff that can afford it. Mind you it’s only a 200mm lens on his monster camera, it would be a 320mm on mine:)

It would, But still only with a 200mm bokeh - so I prefer less depth of field you get with the equavalent larger sensors. Compact cameras with very small sensors drive me scatty trying to get shallow DoF.:(

I have retired to my slightly smaller corner:(

I do think that even if the quality isn't as good, the Sigma lens lets you capture some great images in indoor situations with it's speed. sadly no IS means it's best not to go drinking the night before:(.

I have retired to my slightly smaller corner:(

I do think that even if the quality isn't as good, the Sigma lens lets you capture some great images in indoor situations with it's speed. sadly no IS means it's best not to go drinking the night before:(.

AND STAY THERE :eek:

The sigma is also a fine lens.... just not quite as fine as an 'L'.

Most people wouldn't be able to see the difference..... BUT YOU DO

AND STAY THERE :eek:

The sigma is also a fine lens.... just not quite as fine as an 'L'.

Most people wouldn't be able to see the difference..... BUT YOU DO

If this is your attempt to make me feel better about my cruddy lenses, you have failed. I am now in a major sulk and am selling my camera kit for a giant jet powered Space Hopper….

….(wanders off to corner of room sits down and sulks).

If you stopped the f2.8 down to f4, would the faster CanonL lens be roughly as sharp as the slower Canon lens?

If this is your attempt to make me feel better about my cruddy lenses, you have failed. I am now in a major sulk and am selling my camera kit for a giant jet powered Space Hopper….

….(wanders off to corner of room sits down and sulks).

If you stopped the f2.8 down to f4, would the faster CanonL lens be roughly as sharp as the slower Canon lens?

NOoooooo don't do that, you have such flair and potential - just got to get rid of those cruddy Sigma's:D:D:D

Generally all lenses sharpen as you stop down until you hit thier difraction limit. Difficult to see with the big primes though

I wouldn't actually know if the 2.8 would be as sharp as the f4 - it's all relative. Suffice to say that I have no problem at all with the quality at 2.8.

Come back and do a still life of the spacehopper (I had one of those when they first came out) :eek:

NOoooooo don't do that, you have such flair and potential - just got to get rid of those cruddy Sigma's:D:D:D

Generally all lenses sharpen as you stop down until you hit thier difraction limit. Difficult to see with the big primes though

I wouldn't actually know if the 2.8 would be as sharp as the f4 - it's all relative. Suffice to say that I have no problem at all with the quality at 2.8.

Come back and do a still life of the spacehopper (I had one of those when they first came out) :eek:

Hmmmmmm I am sulking a little less now and may stay with the standard economy Space Hopper. I do have a lovely 17-55mm Canon lens which even has a bit of L glass in it:P:D.

Hmmmm I won’t argue with a man that sounds like he may have a 5D:D. I did have a play with one in the summer and although I loved it, I think my 40D is more versatile for my needs at the moment. Plus I can’t afford to buy the longer lenses I would need:(

No I have a 40D same as you. I thought the 5D took better pictures than the 40D with the same lens. hence the Harrumphing!

And a big Harrumph to Canon for not telling me they were releasing the 50D only months after I bought the 40D! Oh, well, I still need to learn how to use it yet. lol.

EDIT: Amanda, I think we may be technology twins, you have an Onkyo 605, as do I, you have a 40D, as do I....

Have you got a Samsung telly as well?

No I have a 40D same as you. I thought the 5D took better pictures than the 40D with the same lens. hence the Harrumphing!

And a big Harrumph to Canon for not telling me they were releasing the 50D only months after I bought the 40D! Oh, well, I still need to learn how to use it yet. lol.

EDIT: Amanda, I think we may be technology twins, you have an Onkyo 605, as do I, you have a 40D, as do I....

Have you got a Samsung telly as well?

That’s an interesting concept…..’Technology Twins’.

I have a Pioneer Kuro Telly so they are at least both Plasmas (I’m guessing you went for Plasma)

I have a feeling I may get shot down for this, but one of the quite respected chaps on the interweb claims very strongly that the 40D has sufficient advances in it’s manufacture and technology that it is an equal to the aging 5D, even though the 5d has a bigger sensor. The 5D is being replaced anytime now, I think the Photkina show might have it Premiering.

Ps, I am thinking if you buy a BluRay (if you haven’t already) you will get the Panny one?? I have one and there is a recent update to it.