Ultra telephoto?

[Kangaruu]

Does anyone own a telephoto lens that goes up to 400-500mm?

If so, what's your opinion on the IQ and such?

[daragez]

there's nothing had!....lol

[phaqgm]

Since you shoot Canon, read this review on the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[Kangaruu]

Ooh thanks for that, Phaqgm.

I should look at more of the L series telephoto lens.

The one you showed me is actually just a bit more expensive than the Bigma I was considering yet it has much better reviews than the Bigma.

[mrluilou]

I've noticed that any lens over 300mm becomes extremely expensive and usually over 1k bucks. On the nikon forums i've seen a lot of them using teleconverters to give them that extra reach.

[Kangaruu]

People sell used 100-400mm L for just under $1000.

Gotta start saving :ugh:

[mrluilou]

that's pretty cheap for an L lens that has a reach that far :eek:

[Kangaruu]

Thanks to Phaqgm for telling me about that lens :gap:

I was about to get the Bigma.

[phaqgm]

Thanks to Phaqgm for telling me about that lens :gap:

I was about to get the Bigma.

No problem. Just keep in mind that it's a push pull zoom, so it will take some getting used to.

[mrluilou]

push/pull :ugh:
check the canon forums to see how well its IQ

[phaqgm]

My co-worker happens to have this lens, and I was given the opportunity to try it out over the weekend. First, I must say that this thing controls CA very well, and it has amazing sharpness, color, and contrast. All of the images below were autofocused and hand held. They are all unedited, and not even "sharpened for the web".

ISO 100, 400 mm, f/5.6, 1/320
http://www.remleyracing.com/40D/100-400L/_MG_2739.jpg

ISO 250, 400 mm, f/8, 1/800
http://www.remleyracing.com/40D/100-400L/selena.jpg

ISO 800, 400mm, f/8, 1/320
http://www.remleyracing.com/40D/100-400L/_MG_2852.jpg

ISO 500, 400 mm, f/8, 1/1000
http://www.remleyracing.com/40D/100-400L/_MG_2860.jpg

And a 100% crop of the photo above.
http://www.remleyracing.com/40D/100-400L/fly.jpg

[Redline]

I had the 100-400 L. Sold it because I hardly ever used it. It's very much a specialty lens and unless you do a lot of bird photography, it's not really worth it. And if you want better image quality at that range, get the 400mm F/5.6 L prime.

If this is just something you will do once in awhile, get the 70-200mm 2.8 L and a 2x extender. Might not be quite as good as having a dedicated 400mm, but you'll get so much more use out of the lens. It focuses super fast and is great for action photography.

This was taken with my 100-400mm:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/radiantmark/2917615080/" title="Lion by Mark Jardine, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3053/2917615080_19458f01d2_b.jpg" width="1024" height="680" alt="Lion" /></a>

And this was taken with my 70-200mm:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/radiantmark/2579563180/" title="Feed me mom by Mark Jardine, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3043/2579563180_659a5158ce_b.jpg" width="1024" height="681" alt="Feed me mom" /></a>

Obviously the giraffes were much closer. :P If you don't have a 70-200mm yet, I'd get that + extender over a 100-400mm or 400mm for sure. Unless the majority of your photography requires a super telephoto.

[Kangaruu]

Well not really. I'd just like to have a good long telephoto lens for trips to the zoo or when I'm stalking surfers :ugh:

The extender says it causes the lens to be 2 stops slower or whatever? So what would that turn the f2.8 into? F3.5?

[phaqgm]

Well not really. I'd just like to have a good long telephoto lens for trips to the zoo or when I'm stalking surfers :ugh:

The extender says it causes the lens to be 2 stops slower or whatever? So what would that turn the f2.8 into? F3.5?

No, it will take it down to f/5.6

[Kangaruu]

:eek:

But the f2.8 is tempting...

How did you calculate the two stops slower thing?

[Redline]

Well not really. I'd just like to have a good long telephoto lens for trips to the zoo or when I'm stalking surfers
Yea that's why I bought mine and ended up using it once every 6 months. While it's great when you need it, you really are better off with a 70-200 in your kit.
The extender says it causes the lens to be 2 stops slower or whatever? So what would that turn the f2.8 into? F3.5?
Something like that. I'm not too sure honestly. I think the IQ and sharpness drops off quite a bit when using an extender so it's not really a great alternative. I guess my point is that a 70-200 is more bang for your buck. Right now I'm using my 70-200 and cropping into the photo when I want something closeup. But I have 20 megapixels to crop into.

[Kangaruu]

You bring up a good point, Redline.

Plus that f2.8 throughout the whole range is really nice.

I doubt I'd be printing large pictures so cropping would probably do.

I guess I'll be looking for the 70-200mm L now :wiggle:

Does the IS help that much to be worth that extra so many hundred dollars? I mean it's a mere 200mm at the long end...

[mrluilou]

If you are using a tripod the IS shouldn't be all that important. A lens with the reach of 300mm+ is meant for people who use it frequently shooting outdoors and put it to use often. After a while you might get bored of going to the L.A. Zoo taking pictures of the same animals.
I think that a 200mm would be sufficient and if you want that extra reach you can always get the extender. Controlling a 200mm lens handheld is easier than one that has a reach of 300mm or more.

[Haulin]

Its nice being able to zoom in on wildlife from a distance so you don't scare them away. I haven't taken any great shots yet, but as opportunities present themselves, hopefully I can.

[Redline]

You bring up a good point, Redline.

Plus that f2.8 throughout the whole range is really nice.

I doubt I'd be printing large pictures so cropping would probably do.

I guess I'll be looking for the 70-200mm L now :wiggle:

Does the IS help that much to be worth that extra so many hundred dollars? I mean it's a mere 200mm at the long end...

If you are handholding, IS is very helpful. It's a pretty heavy lens. The 70-200 2.8 really is a keeper lens so if you are going to get it, you might as well get the best one available. I made the mistake of originally buying the 70-200 F4 IS to save a bit on cash. Ended up selling it and getting the 2.8 IS. Image quality is stunning for a zoom.

[Kangaruu]

I'm going to lurk craigslist for a good deal :hide:

[phaqgm]

I'm going to lurk craigslist for a good deal :hide:

Good luck, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a VERY popular lens. And the people who do buy that lens don't normally sell it. I think you're probably find some f4's, but the 2.8 may be a harder find. I too have been looking to buy a used lens, but the fact is you don't really save much on a lens by getting a used example. Especially on one as popular as the 2.8.

[Kangaruu]

I saw one for $1300 or something on Craigslist. But I don't have the money to buy it right now :sadpace: