Canon 70-300mm IS 4-5.6, 70-200 4.0L, or Sigma 70-200 2.8

firedancing4life

It's pics like these which drives me nuts....what if I had something 200mm+



The bird wouldn't have been so dinky...:rolleyes

Has anyone else narrowed it down to these 3 lenses and pulled the trigger on one?

Currently...I have:

Rebel XT
Tamron SP AF 17-35mm F/2.8-4 LD Aspherical (IF)
Tamron SP AF 24-135mm Macro F/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical (IF)

I will be picking up a Canon 50mm 1.8 (hopefully Mark I when I find it on ebay)

I guess I want something that's going to be good ...handheld and on a tripod. I like the idea of speed with the Sigma 2.8, but the 300mm and IS of the Canon is also attractive. The 70-200 4L...is well....L glass.

Money isn't an issue...I'll just have to save up. My uncle told me to play around with what I have since I am amateur...get the 550 flash and then I should be able to make a better choice. I guess when i get to that point...I might know...

I like shooting everything...mostly landscapes right now, but when the sun comes out, I'd love to hit up some zoos and baseball games. I'm still looking for friends willing to put up with some test portraits.

What do you think?

pathfinder

If you want to shoot song birds, get nothing shorter than the Canon 400mm f5.6 L.

The Canon 70-200 f4 L is highly thought of, but the f2.8 is many folks preference. Neither are really good for birds, though.

firedancing4life

pathfinder wrote:

If you want to shoot song birds, get nothing shorter than the Canon 400mm f5.6 L.

The Canon 70-200 f4 L is highly thought of, but the f2.8 is many folks preference. Neither are really good for birds, though.

Will they be good if i am really quiet and low to the ground?

hahaha

gluwater

That sure is a little bird. But even with a 400mm you would have to be within 20 feet to get a full frame shot of it. For birds and most wildlife you really need 400mm+ but even then you will wish you had more. The key is getting close to your subject, even with a long lens you still need to get a lot closer than you would think.

The Sigma is a popular lens although I haven't used one so I can't really comment on it. I have the Canon 70-200 2.8IS and it is awsome but still to short for a shot like this, and I would not suggest using the 2xTC on it but the 1.4TC works well, I would think the f/4 would also work well with the 1.4TC but again, I have never used it. I'm a little confused about the Canon 300mm IS 4-5.6 though. Did you mean the 300mm f/4L IS? If so, it is a great lens on and off the tripod like you asked for and it also works well with the 1.4TC to get you 420mm.

firedancing4life

gluwater wrote:

I'm a little confused about the Canon 300mm IS 4-5.6 though.

whoops....70-300

Bob Bell

gluwater wrote:

That sure is a little bird. But even with a 400mm you would have to be within 20 feet to get a full frame shot of it. For birds and most wildlife you really need 400mm+ but even then you will wish you had more. The key is getting close to your subject, even with a long lens you still need to get a lot closer than you would think.

The Sigma is a popular lens although I haven't used one so I can't really comment on it. I have the Canon 70-200 2.8IS and it is awsome but still to short for a shot like this, and I would not suggest using the 2xTC on it but the 1.4TC works well, I would think the f/4 would also work well with the 1.4TC but again, I have never used it. I'm a little confused about the Canon 300mm IS 4-5.6 though. Did you mean the 300mm f/4L IS? If so, it is a great lens on and off the tripod like you asked for and it also works well with the 1.4TC to get you 420mm.

I use a 400+ 1.4x for 560mm and Im way to short very often. 600/4 IS +2x TC giving you 1200/8 would be nice

gluwater

Bob Bell wrote:

I use a 400+ 1.4x for 560mm and Im way to short very often. 600/4 IS +2x TC giving you 1200/8 would be nice

I use the same combo but you really need a lot of light to hand hold it while keeping your shutter speed up. Not saying it's impossible but you have to have steady hands and good technique.

Bob Bell

gluwater wrote:

I use the same combo but you really need a lot of light to hand hold it while keeping your shutter speed up. Not saying it's impossible but you have to have steady hands and good technique.

That is very true. I used iso 400 and 800 sunday in the rain and was getting the shutter speeds up to 1/2500. Good thing I have the noise ninja plug in for photoshop

Nick, I would be interested to hear your hand held technique because for me the TC adds a lot of visible camera shake.

TristanP

I went with the 70-300 IS vs the 70-200/4 for a couple reasons:
1. Longer reach
2. No "steal me!" white paint
3. IS (I love it)
4. Lighter and easy to travel with
5. Great IQ for a consumer piece of glass

Drawbacks are:
1. Not a constant aperture
2. The portrait orientation issue
3. Possibly a slight loss in IQ compared to the 4L, but the UD element helps things immensely
4. In actual use, 300mm isn't that much longer than 200mm

The 4L is by most accounts a very nice piece of glass. I too, would like the 2.8L IS version someday, but that's a long ways off. For this particular use, you'd probably need more like 400mm as someone else mentioned.

pathfinder

Bob Bell wrote:

That is very true. I used iso 400 and 800 sunday in the rain and was getting the shutter speeds up to 1/2500. Good thing I have the noise ninja plug in for photoshop

Nick, I would be interested to hear your hand held technique because for me the TC adds a lot of visible camera shake.

Telephotos + Tcs, really call for tripod usage.

Can a 400+1.4 TC be shot handheld - sure - but the image will be sharper on a Wimberley SideKick.

I actually like 300+2x because it is short and fairly light. It will be sharper on a tripod though too.

When you go to a 500 + TC, don't bother trying to handhold it. Too heavy, too long, too shakey.

Bob Bell

pathfinder wrote:

Telephotos + Tcs, really call for tripod usage.

Can a 400+1.4 TC be shot handheld - sure - but the image will be sharper on a Wimberley SideKick.

I actually like 300+2x because it is short and fairly light. It will be sharper on a tripod though.

When you go to a 500 + TC, don't bother trying to handhold it.

I disagree, the 400/5.6 is the ultimate flight lens. It is also way to light for a wimberley im my opinion. I usually use it on a tripod on a normal head. The 400/5.6 weighs the same as a 70-200.

pathfinder

Bob Bell wrote:

I disagree, the 400/5.6 is the ultimate flight lens. It is also way to light for a wimberley im my opinion. I usually use it on a tripod on a normal head. The 400/5.6 weighs the same as a 70-200.

Bob,
My 400 is f4 IS DO, and hence larger, longer, more wind deflection than the 400 f5.6. Uwe Rheinhart calls the 400 DO his "pelican lens" for PIFs:D( pelicans in filght)

And yes, I shoot it hand held for flying birds too, if I have to.

But I do not think it is sharper hand held than on a Tripod with a gimbel head. Particularly with a 1.4 TC. I use a Sidekick, not a full Wimberly head.

My opinion anyway.:): YMMV.

Bob Bell

pathfinder wrote:

Bob,
My 400 is f4 IS DO, and hence larger, longer, more wind deflection than the 400 f5.6. Uwe Rheinhart calls the 400 DO his "pelican lens" for PIFs:D( pelicans in filght)

And yes, I shoot it hand held for flying birds too, if I have to.

But I do not think it is sharper hand held than on a Tripod with a gimbel head. Particulalry with a 1.4 TC. I use a SIdekick, not a full Wimberly head.

My opinion anyway.:): YMMV.

How does that lens balance on the Sidekick? I was thinking of getting the Jobo version of the side kick because you can add the other arm to make it a full gimble.

Also, I was checking out a Nikon D2x and 600mm a couple weeks ago on a full wimberley and it seems unintuitive to swing that puppy around to photograph a flying bird. Is it hard to adapter from a normal head to a gimble because of the panning?

pathfinder

I use a Sidekick on my RRS BH-55 or an Arca-Swiss Ball head for my 400+TCs, or my 500f4 +or - TCs. The Sidekick seems to be perfectly fine for these -

Wimberley suggests the full gimbel head for the 600 f4 IS L or bigger.

I saw a full, bilateral supported gimbel head in Florida - made by Bogen, but for the life of me I cannot find it at B&H or on the web, other than a few references to it in several photography forums. Maybe Harry remembers some information about it - it was at the dinner at his house.

For shooting flying birds out in front of you, the Sidekick works excellent, especially for large raptors or cranes with predictable flight paths. It is not good for swallows or other small birds whose flight paths are to variable. It is not good for overhead shots at all. But then what really is??

I wonder if a Bushhawk shoulder mount might not be the ticket for those kinds of shots, buy I have only seen the ads in Outdoor Photographer. It does list a website here - www.bushhawk.com



Did not mean to hijack the thread about the Sigma and Canon lenses. I wuld say I am not a big fan of the Canon 70-300, compared to other shorter zooms, or better yet, primes.

turtlebud

will I miss the 300mm zoom?

pathfinder wrote:

Did not mean to hijack the thread about the Sigma and Canon lenses. I wuld say I am not a big fan of the Canon 70-300, compared to other shorter zooms, or better yet, primes.

I'm deciding between the 70-300 IS and 70-200 f/4 L. Because it's an L, my heart wants the 70-200, but I borrowed a regular 75-300 (no IS, no USM) from a friend for a late afternoon outdoor wedding (in the mountains - lots of trees) and I loved being able to get the up close pictures. (my longest lens is the 28-135 IS). My concern with the 70-200 is that it won't be long enough to take wedding shots, especially if I can't get close to the front.

Does the zoom from 200 to 300 make that much of a difference? And is the IS more valuable than the contant aperture & L glass for wedding shots?

nikos

turtlebud wrote:

I'm deciding between the 70-300 IS and 70-200 f/4 L. Because it's an L, my heart wants the 70-200, but I borrowed a regular 75-300 (no IS, no USM) from a friend for a late afternoon outdoor wedding (in the mountains - lots of trees) and I loved being able to get the up close pictures. (my longest lens is the 28-135 IS). My concern with the 70-200 is that it won't be long enough to take wedding shots, especially if I can't get close to the front.

Well, the 70-300IS does have a single "L" lens if that makes you feel any better.

Both lenses are very sharp but if you're going to be using one for outdoor weddings (with good lighting), then i would opt for the 70-200/f4. 200mm should be more than enough but if you need that extra reach, then you could also slap on a 1.4x TC.

Also keep in mind that the 70-300IS may produce softer images in portrait orientation. Canon acknowledges the problem and hopefully they will find a fix for it soon. Unfortunately, the overall build quality of this lens isn't remotely close to that of the 70-200/f4 lens.

Nikos

ziggy53

pathfinder wrote:

...
I saw a full, bilateral supported gimbel head in Florida - made by Bogen, but for the life of me I cannot find it at B&H or on the web, ...

Path,

Is this what you saw?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=BO3421&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=126663

Check this setup:

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/41790482/original



ziggy53

Steve Cavigliano

turtlebud wrote:

I'm deciding between the 70-300 IS and 70-200 f/4 L. Because it's an L, my heart wants the 70-200, but I borrowed a regular 75-300 (no IS, no USM) from a friend for a late afternoon outdoor wedding (in the mountains - lots of trees) and I loved being able to get the up close pictures. (my longest lens is the 28-135 IS). My concern with the 70-200 is that it won't be long enough to take wedding shots, especially if I can't get close to the front.



Does the zoom from 200 to 300 make that much of a difference? And is the IS more valuable than the contant aperture & L glass for wedding shots?

TB,
I really doubt if you will miss 201-300mms if you are just talking about weddings. If you have a 1.6X camera, 200mm (320mm FOV) may even be too long for a wedding (unless you're shooting in a huge church).

I have used a 70-200 for concerts and I am usually not that close to the stage. It works very well and I find the length to be adequate.

Steve

pathfinder

ziggy53 wrote:

Path,

Is this what you saw?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=BO3421&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=126663

Check this setup:

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/41790482/original



ziggy53

Yup, that's it!!

Thanks so much, Ziggy!! I gotta add one of those to my kit!!

I have looked at the 300-800 - but man, that is a dedicated tool - Very long, heavy, and slow to focus I bet too.

As for 300mm lenses and wedding shooting - I rarely use a 200mm lens on my 20D indoors. It is too long. I like 200mm on a full frame camera, but that is a 135mm tele on a 20D.

I can't imagine using 300mm indoors unless you are shooting in a gymnasium. Indoors, at a wedding, zoom with your feet. Your image will thank you.