Ideal Canon telephoto lense

[Allen Mead]

What recomendations do you guys have for a canon telephoto lense? Will be used with an EOS 20D.

Thanks in advance!

[rdjones]

I'm a 10D owner and I have a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabiliser USM and I am very happy with it, you can get them for about £400.

[Allen Mead]

Cheers rdjones!

[Allen Mead]

What are these like for catching cars on the move?

[vwpilot]

Thats a very open ended question. What kind of money do you have or want to spend?

If you want one of the best lenses out there, you should be looking at the 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens, but that will run you about $1600 US. A great value lens is the 70-200 f/4L lens, its about $600 US and is super sharp if you dont need the extra speed or IS of the f/2.8.

Also, do you need a short zoom or long one? Let us know what you are looking for and what you can spend and we'll be able to help you out more.

[brickkicker]

As suggested the 70-200 F2.8 is a great lens but also the 100-400L IS canon lens is very good and if your at places like Silverstone you need it.
As for catching cars on the move thats all down to practice

[Allen Mead]

This is a difficlut one as I don't really understand the 'f' values on the lenses.

I guess it would need to be on similar lines as my existing one which is a 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III EF lens.

Would definately need to be a quick focusing one. Budget wise, I have about £500-600.

Cheers.

[pao]

The "f value" I think you're referring to is the maximum aperture of a lens, where smaller is better. The Canon 70-200 f/4, for example, lets in half as much light when the aperture disc is fully open as the 70-200 f/2.8. The amount of light is halved with each factor of sqrt(2)=1.41.

One exhaustive explanation is at http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a lens with a greater maximum aperture (corresponding to a numerically smaller f/stop) will tend to focus faster; it should be noted that most SLR lenses still focus quickly, however. That and I don't own an SLR so I'm not basing this on experience, only theory.

[Allen Mead]

Thanks for all the help guys, much appreciated!!!

That is a really really good site, thanks pao.

[gi_gav]

I'd really go for the 70-200 L as suggested by vwpilot.

The optics are as sharp as the (higher priced) f2.8 version and it's built to last a long time. Much more solid than the 75-300 IS.

Also, on the 20D, it'll look like a 110-320mm lens, given the crop factor on the smaller sensor, which is plenty long enough.

[ColinM]

Hey, what about the Sigma EX 70-200 HSM? Anyone use one of these? Half the price of a Canon L

[brickkicker]

I did look at the sigma 70-200mm F2.8 when I went to the shop I looked at both the sigma and the canon. When I was looking at them the sigma broke, this was brand new out the box worked for 2 mins then didnt focus, after that I lost all confidence in sigma and when for the canon which has been great been through freezing conditions and heavy rain. And the final point is that the sigma as well as being half the price is three times the weight, something to think about if your carring it a lot.

[ColinM]

Yeah, I've had bad experiences with Sigma "consumer" lenses failing on me but I'm borrowing a friends Sigma 70-200 f2.8 at the moment, and I must say it seems to be quite a good performer and quick to focus (and this is a 4 year old lens) The only thing that niggles me is that the zoom ring zooms the wrong way! (Nikon style??).
No IS on this one though. Do you guys find IS useful at the track or is it usually switched off when you're panning?

[brickkicker]

I leave the IS switched on as it lets you get drop the shutter speed a lower giving a better blur but not getting any camera shake.

[gi_gav]

Remember Colin that the 70-200 f4 doesn't have IS, only the f2.8 one at three times the cost.

The 75-300 doesn't have the panning specific IS either, so you're best going for a good sharp lens and practicing your panning with the advantage of digital.

The 70-200 f4 is solidly built but light, in fact i really want one for when carrying the 2.8 version is just too much.

Have a go at one, and i think you'll be impressed.

cheers,

Gav

[Allen Mead]

gi_gav, I noticed this when looking on Canon's website, i was not amused! But then I've been using a lens without it anyway so not lost anything. That f2.8 is real expensive tho isn't it.

[gi_gav]

expensive but absolutely worth it if you need a lens for more than casual snapping.

The fact that (as mentioned in the past) mine fell onto concrete from 3 feet and was still taking pin sharp photos in a thunderstorm within the day speaks volumes for the quality of these lenses.

But yes, it is a shame that the IS only features on the f2.8 lens and similarly priced 300mm f4 and 100-400 f4-5.6, meaning that there isn't yet a suitable IS lens for a motorsport enthusiast without the deepest of pockets!

[ColinM]

Thanks Gav. Will be borrowing a 70-200 f4 for the weekend from a friend of mine so I can compare with the Sigma f2.8 (also borrowed from a friend. Aren't I lucky to have friends who can afford such exotic glass )

[Allen Mead]

Popped in Dixons (yeah I know) on friday night and they had instore both 70-200mm USM which is pretty big and the Image stabilising one - it's HUGE!! so's it's price

[rdjones]

I have been looking at lens again today not that I want a new one or anything. Anyway I came across the Canon EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L USM, has anyone got one or know if they are any good?

[gi_gav]

One very special lens there rdjones...

Anything with Canon's 'L' tag generally is - sharp optics, weather sealed and exceptionally well built.

The 35-350 is a pretty extreme zoom range but the lens still has a good reputation from what I know.

[rdjones]

Better start saving then. I think I will stick with my EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabiliser USM for the time being. Might have it by Le Mans 2006.

[Snapper Baz]

Brikkicker, is that IS actually working? Iv'e got a steady hand and can honestly say I havn't nticed any differenc in my pics with either on or off...is it just a selling gimick or does it actually work? Also, is that 100-400 as good as the 70-300 (Canon)??

[kdr]

i tend to think its a gimmick. it might work when you're down at a 60th with a long lens in a dark garage, but everywhere else i've found it a jiggly nuisance when you're focusing, and now keep it permanently off. i'd rather go for focal length than spend £$£$£ on IS or VR.

[Hugewally]

Originally posted by Snapper Baz
Brikkicker, is that IS actually working? Iv'e got a steady hand and can honestly say I havn't nticed any differenc in my pics with either on or off...is it just a selling gimick or does it actually work? Also, is that 100-400 as good as the 70-300 (Canon)??

I find the IS works just fine in low light, low shutter speeds or long focal lenght conditions...



Martin