Which telephoto zoom lens should I get?

[magdelan]

I am searching for a telephoto zoom lens that will allow me to photograph things from a far (hence the telephoto lens :) )

I'm not looking for a cheap-o lens nor do I need a $5,000 lens. I realize that some clarity is lost with a lens that has a greater focal range which is why I'd like to keep the range reasonably small (something above 150mm and below 300mm). I would also like the aperature to be as large as is affordable. I currently have a Tameron 28-75mm f/2.8. I realize that this is a tall order to fill, but I figure I would ask the experts here. Maybe you know something that I don't.

Thanks in advance for the help!!!

[BlueCorn]

70-200 f/4 is an amazing lens in that range. The non-IS (older) version is an absolute steal.

[Recty]

Do you use a Canon or Nikon camera? Specific model would help as well, as there are some lenses which only work on certain bodies, plus you can factor in crop factor with the crop sensor cameras to help you get a little extra bang for your buck.

[magdelan]

I have the Canon T2i. I will look into the 70-200mm lens, however I feel that a lens with an IS may be very important to me.

[Recty]

I have lots of experience with the 100-400mm L that Canon sells, I really enjoy it. I've found it to be an amazing lens, I dont think I'd ever part with it.

[Jeff000]

70-200 f2.8
With VRII if Nikon or IS if Cannon.

The 70-200 should be in everyones bag.

[jbmathwiz]

70-200 F4 non IS. I picked mine up on craigslist for $480, perfect condition. People constantly get L glass, then realize photography is expensive and sell their equipment for way too cheap... Buying new is dumb.

[Jeff000]

I have the Canon T2i. I will look into the 70-200mm lens, however I feel that a lens with an IS may be very important to me.

You get an extra stop or two when having IS so it can be a big deal.


70-200 F4 non IS. I picked mine up on craigslist for $480, perfect condition. People constantly get L glass, then realize photography is expensive and sell their equipment for way too cheap... Buying new is dumb.

It is expensive, and depending on your goal the f4 non IS might be good enough, but I can tell you right now coming from his 28-75 f2.8 he will be hugely disappointed if he gets an f4 lens.
Buying new is perfect if you want to make sure it has never been dropped or wet. Mind you it makes a huge difference if you are just messing around or getting paid.
I would personally never buy used camera equipment, even though I will tell people to all the time.

[IPT]

I have a 70-200 F4 non IS (willing to part with this one), and the same with IS, and a 70-200 F2.8 with IS. They are all awesome lenses, but not cheep. As much as I like the F2.8 version I usually take the F4 just because of the weight issue. The quality is the same. Only if I am going to be in very low light situations or will just be shooting from a vehicle (thus not having to lug that and other lenses around) will I take the F2.8 version.

Can't go wrong with any of them.

As for the 100-400 ... I won't even go there. Recty will be all over me :).

[Jeff000]

As much as I like the F2.8 version I usually take the F4 just because of the weight issue. The quality is the same.

I'm not even sure where to start with this.
What kind of camera are you using first?

I can tell the quality difference from my 85mm f1.4 and my 80-200 f2.8 (shooting at 85mm) and those are both high end glass. Once I have replaced a consumer lens with a "pro" level, it is impossible to go back, for me at least. And losing IS on top of everything and you still not noticing a difference, I kinda wonder what you are shooting a little more.

[BlueCorn]

I'm not even sure where to start with this.
What kind of camera are you using first?

I can tell the quality difference from my 85mm f1.4 and my 80-200 f2.8 (shooting at 85mm) and those are both high end glass. Once I have replaced a consumer lens with a "pro" level, it is impossible to go back, for me at least. And losing IS on top of everything and you still not noticing a difference, I kinda wonder what you are shooting a little more.

That's the problem with asking folks what lens to buy. Everyone shoots differently. I'm a landscape guy, my Gitzo is way more useful than IS is to me. The only IS lens I have is my 100-400L and IS is always turned off.

BTW - The 70-200 f/4L is sharper than the 2.8, in my experience. It's also a LOT smaller and lighter. When the bag already weighs 30lbs thats a concern.

[Jeff000]

That's the problem with asking folks what lens to buy. Everyone shoots differently. I'm a landscape guy, my Gitzo is way more useful than IS is to me. The only IS lens I have is my 100-400L and IS is always turned off.

BTW - The 70-200 f/4L is sharper than the 2.8, in my experience. It's also a LOT smaller and lighter. When the bag already weighs 30lbs thats a concern.

yes, and I am not a Canon guy so knowing what lens shoots like what is a little different too.

I shoot studio-ish. So set up and shoot, not much moving and my gear is always handy.
And I don't use my SLR for vacations or the like.

[BlueCorn]

And I don't use my SLR for vacations or the like.

I don't either but if I'm leading a 5 day workshop, those extra pounds matter. Same reason I carry tubes and leave my macro at home.

[BlueCorn]

You get an extra stop or two when having IS so it can be a big deal.


It always annoys me when folks post that about IS or VR. It's absolutely false. f/4 is f/4. Turning on stabilization doesn't let more light it. It just means you're letting your ability to hold still determine the right aperture vs. what the scene calls for. I don't like relinquishing creative control which is why I use a tripod. If the right aperture for a scene is f/11, I use it. I rarely give a damn what my shutter speed ends up at. When I do care, it's my choice, not the cameras or whether I think it'll cause camera shake that decides.

To each their own.

[Jeff000]

It always annoys me when folks post that about IS or VR. It's absolutely false. f/4 is f/4. Turning on stabilization doesn't let more light it. It just means you're letting your ability to hold still determine the right aperture vs. what the scene calls for. I don't like relinquishing creative control which is why I use a tripod. If the right aperture for a scene is f/11, I use it. I rarely give a damn what my shutter speed ends up at. When I do care, it's my choice, not the cameras or whether I think it'll cause camera shake that decides.

To each their own.

I never said f stop. I said stops, be it shutter, ISO or f stop.
And that is why what I said is true.

A tripod is not always possible, good luck using a tripod on a boat, or in a moving vehicle, etc.

[BlueCorn]

Sure, but we're back to my first point. Hardly anyone shoots like "you." Everyone has their own style.

[Jeff000]

Sure, but we're back to my first point. Hardly anyone shoots like "you." Everyone has their own style.

Yes, just validating my statement by providing clarity.


I shoot almost always between f1.4 and f4, f8 on occasion.

[BlueCorn]

Exactly, and I'm at f/8 - f/11 more than anything else unless I'm shooting at night.

Cheers.

[Misled]

A tripod is not always possible, good luck using a tripod on a boat, or in a moving vehicle, etc.

Do it all the time.

I have mini pods and window pods at all times. 99% of my shooting is done outdoors. One of my mini pods also functions as a chest pod. My remote shutter release is always attached to my camera. When shooting where and what I do, there isn't normally time to set a shot up. you have to be ready at the drop of a hat. You can't shoot stuff like this'

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q68/jllndmb/Reef/DSC_9924.jpg

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q68/jllndmb/Reef/DSC_1315.jpg

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q68/jllndmb/Reef/DSC_1882.jpg

in a studio. If you wanna get out of your comfort zone, hang around.

[Jeff000]

Do it all the time.

I have mini pods and window pods at all times. 99% of my shooting is done outdoors. One of my mini pods also functions as a chest pod. My remote shutter release is always attached to my camera. When shooting where and what I do, there isn't normally time to set a shot up. you have to be ready at the drop of a hat. You can't shoot stuff like this'

in a studio. If you wanna get out of your comfort zone, hang around.

I have to ask how you use a tripod in a boat, and not have a use for IS or VR to give you an edge with shutter speed?

[Misled]

Would just use the one I use as a chest pod. If I need speed, I have fast enough lenses to compensate for that. Don't get me wrong. I have pretty much the same line-up of lenses as you. I don't shoot with the 70-200 much. I do use the 24-70, and it doesn't have VR. I use the 105 normally, and I don't use the VR when shooting macros and normally shoot with manual focus becaust the lens tends to hunt too much when trying to focus when really close to a subject.

[Misled]

This is my carry for shooting bugs and flowers. You can see the pod I use as a chest pod.

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q68/jllndmb/Reef/DSCN7259.jpg

[magdelan]

Great Dialogue. I'm taking it all in. Thank you. Jesse, how do you like your macro flash? I like the idea of it not being a straight on flash. Would you recomend an everyday flash over another?

[Misled]

First, I love the system. That being said, my D200 controls it without a commander flash, which makes it a no-brainer for me. I don't much like the diffusers. They tend to cut down the light a bit too much. Most people use scotch tape and forego them, but when I'm close, they put out really well.

If I have time to shoot something that's somewhat static, (like flowers for example), I can really get creative by removing the flashes from the ring and setting them around the subject to get the light I want. They really don't "flash" for distance though. You can get more by removing the diffusers and adjusting the flash to point straight out, but these don't really have much distance.

[Misled]

hicup

[Misled]

I'm getting too old.

[Misled]

hicup again

[dendronepthya]

Sure, but we're back to my first point. Hardly anyone shoots like "you." Everyone has their own style.

I agree with this. I've purchased and sold the 70-200 f/2.8L IS twice. For how I shoot, I could never justify ever taking it out of my bag and putting it on my camera. Thousands of photographers before me probably made their entire livelihood off of this lens.

[IPT]

tripod folded up and used like a monopod on a boat..

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/gator-eye2.jpg

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/_MG_8584-passoff.jpg

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/9-11-1.jpg


Hey Jeff -curious what your you're taking images of typically? Why are you shooting at F1.4? The only time I ever use an aperture like that is for night photography. Even the I try to stop down a hair if I can. I guess maybe for a portrait but rarely if ever do I use that F stop. Like Doug said, I too use a tripod as much as possible - even a cable release or timer if the shot allows for it.

If I am handheld I personally like the IS. hence why I am selling the non-is. Not that it is not a good lens, but the IS version gives me flexability if I need to "grab" a shot.

BTW, virtually all of my lenses are "L" quality and I use a 7D or 1Ds Mk3 body. I've never heard of an 80-200 lens (guess it's Nikon) and it doesn't suprise me that you find a prime lens sharper than the zoom. Most people feel that way. That said I have had several images published that were shot with a zoom lens. When it comes the sharpness technique is often what really makes the difference at the end of the day. You could have an $8000 lens and get soft images if you are not on the ball with your technique.

Jesse - love the butterfly image!

[Misled]

Thanks Louis, and yes the 80-200 is a Nikon lens. It's the earlier version of the 70-200 and is still made today. At half the cost of the 70-200, it can be a steal. Has the same quality glass as the 70-200 and built like a tank. All metal and very heavy.

[Jeff000]

Hey Jeff -curious what your you're taking images of typically? Why are you shooting at F1.4? The only time I ever use an aperture like that is for night photography. Even the I try to stop down a hair if I can. I guess maybe for a portrait but rarely if ever do I use that F stop. Like Doug said, I too use a tripod as much as possible - even a cable release or timer if the shot allows for it.

Portrait, commercial modeling, runway.
For 98+% of what I shoot a tripod is just in the way and helps for nothing. I need to be able to move.

Nice shot off a boat, my only experience shooting off a boat is desert storm on lake Havasu every year, and between the constant boat chop and full on waves coupled with the sheer speed of the boats even in the direct Arizona sun I was left wishing I had a couple extra stops to make up somewhere.
And then I have done a couple wake boarding shoots, the one I used a tripod mounted to the tower, but the other out of the chopper even with VR and a fig rig it was tough to shoot. Made me wish I had a $40,000 gyro stability system like the film guy was using.

Oh and the comment on the 80-200, yes it is an older Nikon lens, I don't own one anymore as it didn't survive a fall from a moving car (never put a lens down on top of a car people!) but I have a habit of calling my 70-200 a 80-200.

[Misled]

So I kind of understand why you love the 85 with what you shoot. With having to move and shooting the runway, I'd imagine it's weight, (or lack there of), makes it pretty much a no-brainer. The 105 is a pretty nice tele also, but it's still only 2.8. It does have a focus limiter to keep it out of the macro focusing range when using it as such.

Like Louis and Doug, I'm rarely below f8 unless I'm shooting to blur out a background. Normally I'm at 9.5-11. For shooting outdoors it tends to give a more natural look to things. The images have a more 3 dimensional look to them instead of looking flat.

[Jeff000]

So I kind of understand why you love the 85 with what you shoot. With having to move and shooting the runway, I'd imagine it's weight, (or lack there of), makes it pretty much a no-brainer. The 105 is a pretty nice tele also, but it's still only 2.8. It does have a focus limiter to keep it out of the macro focusing range when using it as such.

Like Louis and Doug, I'm rarely below f8 unless I'm shooting to blur out a background. Normally I'm at 9.5-11. For shooting outdoors it tends to give a more natural look to things. The images have a more 3 dimensional look to them instead of looking flat.

It's funny, because everyone once in a while I will try and take a nice landscape picture or something like that, but it always just looks meh, but it is because I try and shoot it like I shoot models. Which doesn't work. lol I'll have to remember to give F11ish a try next landscape attempt.
And ya the 85mm I can hold very steady too, with the battery grip it balances nice to keep it steady.