Do I really need this lens?

callorhinus

callorhinus

Well-Known Member
I have now Canon 450d (= Digital Rebel XSi), EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF-S 55-250 mm F/4-5.6 IS and EF 40 mm F/2.8. The last lens is used now almost always instead of first of them. Now I want to buy EF 70-200 F/4L (not IS) to replace 55-250 for outdoor daylight photo (zoo mainly). I expect that this lens will give me much sharper image and comfort while using polarizing filter. Fast and silent focusing, constant and bigger aperture across zoom range is pretty good things too.
I have examined my old photos and tried to shoot using 55-250 with IS off, and looks like I can do handheld well enough in 70-200 focus range. So I think I can live without IS which doubles the price of the lens ($650 vs $1300).

I want also to buy new camera some months later (70d probably) so I will use this lens to record video too. Better sensor will give me possibility to use higher ISO without getting noticeable noise etc. etc...

But it's only a theory yet. The practice is: I've used some photos for book (not photobook/photoalbum). Usual colour typography, photos 15*20 cm taken with mentioned 450d and 55-250. More than that, some of them taken with Canon A610 (good compact in it's days), and all of them are good enough.

So the question is in the title: do I really need 70-200 F/4L? I know I will be glad to have a convenient new toy but if I can significantly improve the image quality (to crop images etc.)?

I had one more option - Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM but now I don't think it will give me any significant advantages. Any advice would be much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
You will definitely see an improvement with that lens and you are correct you do not need to spend double on IS. It is great if you can afford it, but if not just use the improved high ISO capabilities of new cameras. I made exactly the same decision, except with the more expensive 70-200 2.8. I bought the non-IS (almost a year ago) because it was a thousand dollars cheaper than the IS version2 that is current.

The other lens that is very highly rated and great for zoos is the new L series 70-300. But this is as much or more than the IS 70-200 f4, so perhaps it is out of your price range? Of course 2.8 like I have is even better, mainly because the shallower depth of field is better for blurring out fences. If you can find a used 70-200 2.8 in good condition that you can afford, that would be the way to go in my opinion. However it is heavier and they do keep their value, so even used ones are not that cheap.
 
I've used the 70-300mm, and I now have the L-series 70-300mm. Both are excellent lenses with the L-series obviously having a more professional quality to the images. But the EF 70-300 is still a very good choice, especially for zoos.

:p

Hix
 
Thanks for answers!

Hix, I've read quite often that 70-300 is usm is soft at 250-300 mm. Is that right? In this case there is no reason to replace 55-250 with 70-300. USM is not enough I think.

Maybe you use lenses with longer focal lenght? My friends owned CANON EF 400 mm f/5.6 L USM and Sigma 150-500, they are satisfied. Such lens will be not even my next lens, but I must look forward.
 
I haven't used either of those, but maybe Arizona Docent has.

However, I have tried the Canon L-series 100-400mm f4-5.6 USM IS. I found it difficult to use, especially with a teleconverter, and the fact it wasn't sealed was an important factor that led me to buying the L 70-300mm instead. But I did like the bokeh on the 100-400mm.

:p

Hix
 
It is widely believed (see CanonRumors.com among others) that this fall will see the announcement of a new improved version of the 100-400L. This one will have a separate zoom and focus ring, just like their other lenses, instead of the push-pull zoom of the current 100-400L. This new lens will almost certainly be the ideal zoo lens. But it will also be expensive, probably around $2 thousand US, so out of reach for many.

I do look from time to time at the 400 5.6L, which by all reviews is the best long telephoto for the money. However, for zoo use the fixed length is impractical IMO. I used to use the 300 4L, which looks like a twin of the 400 5.6L, along with the old 80-200 2.8 (the black one that would not take teleconverters). Both were too much to carry eventually and the 300 was too limiting in some situations (I needed to zoom back to get the entire animal). I sold them both and got the 70-200 2.8 use my 1.4x teleconverter for extra reach when needed.

Trust me, you will want a zoom. The fixed 400 is great if you are going out to photograph birds or animals in the wild, but it will be too limiting for zoo use (unless you are happy doing head shots only, which you may or may not be).
 
Also keep in mind the 400 5.6L does not focus very close, so there will be times in a zoo where the animal is actually too close to be able to take the photo.
 
It's not perfect but I've been really happy with my [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B003YH9DZ4/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1405293545&sr=1-2&keywords=tamron+70-300mm+vc"]Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.[/ame]6 – their IS, called Vibration Compensation by the company, is great for the price that you can get it for. I didn't have the cash to get up to the higher level Canon glass, but pretty much everything I've posted online has been shot with it.
 
Arizona Docent said:
Trust me, you will want a zoom. The fixed 400 is great if you are going out to photograph birds or animals in the wild, but it will be too limiting for zoo use (unless you are happy doing head shots only, which you may or may not be).
Click to expand...

Of course I want zoom, and that's why I want 70-200 or 70-300. I thought about wildlife photography when I asked about 400 mm. Our zoo almost doesn't have so large enclosures to use 400 mm lens.

I am interested in this lens for future. After 70-200 and camera my next lens will be 10-22 or 10-18, because I was lacking this range for many times. And maybe much later something like 400 mm or 150-500...
 
Oddernod said:
It's not perfect but I've been really happy with my Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 – their IS, called Vibration Compensation by the company, is great for the price that you can get it for. I didn't have the cash to get up to the higher level Canon glass, but pretty much everything I've posted online has been shot with it.
Click to expand...

Owners of this lens praise it and sometimes say that it's better than Canon 70-300. But unfortunately Tamron service is available only on the largest cities here so I decided not to buy Tamron lenses at this moment. Thanks for advice!
 
I'm late noticing this thread, but will pass on my experience anyway, hopefully will be useful still.

I'm a Canon user and have used various none-L telephoto zooms, and now use the 100-400L.

My advice is go L series every time, the difference in image quality is stark. Pick the one that best suits your distance needs and budget and go for it.

I still have the 70-300 IS which I occasionally use when the 100-400 will be too heavy or indiscreet. While a decent lens, especially when you avoid its top end and shoot at f8, its simply not in the same class as an L. And you wouldn't expect it to be at its price point and production and glass values.

Further elaborating on my 'avoid the top end' point, I've found that most zooms soften to an extent when at full magnification, so its not unique to the 70-300, just be aware of it.

all of the 70-200 Ls are good, and yes you can always add a 1.4 converter for a little extra reach.

the 100-400L needs a little getting used to in its handling, its a big thing and the push-pull action doesn't suit everyone. I like it, because I don't have to alter my stance or twist a wrist while zooming. I just find that easier and am a little disappointed the II is going to a twist ring. But hey, I'm in a minority there I know!

I'm also a big IS fan, and for me the 70-200L IS would be worth the extra. Especially in zoos, where there are often dark corners in enclosures even on bright days.

I've tried the 100-300L too, that's also excellent.

The primes are optically better than the zooms, quality is second to none, but your options are severely limited as noted above. I've always preferred the versatility of a zoom despite accepting you take a very slight hit on image quality.
 
My 100-400mm L lives on my 60D... and I visit zoos where the animals are quite close, as well as one where they are much further from the public.

The push-pull zoom is awesome, and took me very little time to get comfortable with - and I now find it much more appropriate for my shooting style than the usual twist zoom on other lenses.

T.
 
Thanks for answers!

I decided that it's better to regret what you have done than what you haven't done, and recently bought 70-200 f/4. It's bad weather here so I had few chances to test new lens, but at this moment I can answer my own question: yes, I really do need this lens! :) It is quite the thing to photograph in our zoo.

Tracey, your photos are great! I hope one day I'll show here as good and interesting photos as yours.

Welcome to Zoochat!
 
You are gong to really appreciate the niceness of an L lens callorhinus... and thank you for the compliment on my photos... *grin*

T.
 
I use a 70-300L (previously had 70-300IS and 100-400L) but the 55-250 is highly regarded particularly in light of its low cost. There is now an STM version of the 55-250 which would fit Callorhinus requirement for a lens to use for video purposes. Obviously the moment has passed but just thought I'd mention it anyway.
 
I've never used an L series lens so I can't comment on how good they are. I know someone with a 100-400 and her photos are pretty soft. The highest range I've used is a 50-500mm and while it was nice to have it for extreme close-ups I didn't think it performed any better than my canon 70-300is lens. Certainly not enough to justify the expense.

Congratulations on your new lens.
 
I can see the sharpness improvement between my 100-400mm L lens and my standard IS lenses... the L lens definitely gives a much sharper image IMHO.

Then again, it can also depend on post processing as to how the final image ends up, yes? I don't do much to mine at all, whereas others may apply filters and other fancy tricks to get the images the way THEY like them.

I did notice that when I had a UV filter on my L lens, the images weren't as sharp as I'd like - especially if trying to shoot through angled glass on enclosures. Much better without the UV filter on.

T.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top