tele for 40D?

chrisjohnson · August 12, 2009

I am looking for a tele for my Canon 40D. Already have the 17-55 and the macro 100mm - both great lenses.

However, there are occasions where I would like a longer lens. I am not into sports or wild-life photography - mostly just want to get a bit closer to a person or a landscape feature, and usually in decent light situations.

As this is an occasional situation I am tempted to go for the "consumer" 55-250 but I worry whether I will become instantly disappointed and end up upgrading. Obviously part of me would like the L series, but it is awkward to carry around just-in-case and is several times more expensive.

ziggy53 · August 12, 2009

My "travel" Canon tele-zoom is the EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM. Almost a perfect lens for outdoor daylight it also does well for indoor with flash (especially if the flash has a focus assist). In good light it tolerates the Canon EF 1.4x teleconverter without too much image definition loss. The lens is perfectly usable wide open and only slightly benefits from stopping down. The resolution compares well to most primes and beats some primes.

AF is extremely fast and accurate, even with the teleconverter. The lens also works very well with the 5D MKII and has great edge sharpness with acceptable (and software correctable) vignetting.

Yes, it's a pretty expensive lens but it sees a lot of service for me and that lends to a great "value".

Highly recommended.

Reviews:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/196-canon-ef-70-200mm-f4-usm-l-is-test-report--review

BTW, the second site above also reviews the EF-S 55-250mm, f/4-5.6 IS, but it is not as convincing a lens at 200mm (or 250mm). Not bad, but not in the same league as the 70-200mm "L" lenses. Since I often need the long end it does not meet my needs.

Manfr3d · August 13, 2009

I agree, the 70-200mm f/4.0 L (with or without IS) is a super lens.
The non-IS is the more affordable one especialy on the used market.
I use it on a 5D II and X1i and am very happy with it's performance.

The other recommendation goes towards the Canon 200mm f/2.8 L (I or II).
Photozone and the digital picture (see post above) have very favorable
reviews of this lens. It takes teleconverters better than the zooms and
is inconspiciously black. The size and weight is about equal to the zoom.

mrcoons · August 13, 2009

Another vote for the 200mm f/2.8 L II. I love mine and have it with me for most events I cover. I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L (non IS) and take it when I think I will need a telezoom but I really prefer the 200mm. It's lighter and maybe a little sharper and as Manfr3d said, it's not as obvious since it is black.

cmason · August 13, 2009

The 70-200 f4L is a magical lens, and the singular bargain of the L lens family. It is razor sharp, and will provide you with jaw dropping clarity, and remains my favorite lens.

It is reasonably compact, and comparable in price to the prosumer 70-300 IS. For those interested in exactly how big it is: grab a can of soda. The 70-200 f4L is similar diameter and a can and a half tall. The 70-200 f2.8L is significantly bigger, but arguably a tad more useful.

I don't have experience with IS, and can not say whether is adds to physical size, but it certainly adds to cost, and the 70-200 f4L IS is not really considered a bargain.

chrisjohnson · August 13, 2009

Thanks for the idea for the 200mm - I had not thought of this but will now.
My initial feeling is that it might not be very flexible. You can crop down in post-processing but never crop up - if you know what I mean. So I would be missing the 100-200mm range. From my pre-digital days I do however have a weakness for prime type lenses.

Seems that no-one so far has any experience with the efs 55-250. The review Ziggy pointed me to was quite positive but I know you tend to get what you pay for with glass.

The 70-200 f4 looks great. Being in northern europe mostly I expect to appreciate the IS to stretch a bit in our long winters and cloudy days. Still this makes things pricey.

I'm ruling out the 70-200 f2.8 - a beauty but too big and expensive.

pathfinder · August 13, 2009

Tamron sells a 28-300 zoom with VR that makes a nice travel lens. It is small, light, black and inconspicuous for its reach.

I have a lot of images shot with it lately.

It is not the equal of the Canon 70-200 fl IS L at all, but used carefully, and sharpened properly in ACR and corrected for chromatic aberration ( which mine demonstrates very little of ) it can be an inexpensive, but capable lens. It is not fast f3.5-6.3, and I rarely shoot with it smaller than f8 or f5.6.

I used it to capture a series of portraits while sitting in the shade at Toroweap

I love Canon L glass, and have bunches of them, but small, light, black lenses are also appealing.

jmphotocraft · August 13, 2009

Another vote for the 70-200/4 with or without IS. The f/4 version is reportedly sharper than the f/2.8, and it is very portable. Here is a pic to go with cmason's comment. It weighs about as much as that 16oz can of soda too!

Nikolai · August 13, 2009

100-400. And if you add relatively inexpensive 1.4TC you will get a lot of zoom power!

[Deleted User] · August 13, 2009

Nikolai,

Do you get much autofocus with the 1.4 on a 100-400? I would think you get over f/5.6 rather quickly.

But if it works, I will have to get a 1.4x.

Nikolai · August 13, 2009

Jim K wrote:

Nikolai,

Do you get much autofocus with the 1.4 on a 100-400? I would think you get over f/5.6 rather quickly.

But if it works, I will have to get a 1.4x.

If you tape the pins, you will. Not a lot, but at least focus confirmation.

[Deleted User] · August 13, 2009

Goldenballs,

There is a used 55-250 for sale in the Canon section here. Might be worth buying if you find the price OK. I don't know what the usual price for a used 55-250 is.

You could use it for a year or so and then decide if a "better" tele would be worth getting.

Having said that I really like my new 70-200 f/4L IS that others talk about but then I had spent four monts with a 100-400 that I still have and knew that I also wanted a lighter/shorter tele to handhold when hunting Scrub Jays. The 1-4 on a monopod was heavy after walking along sandy paths. I also need IS but in my case it's an age thing

chrisjohnson · August 15, 2009

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx

Good review on this subject which also brings the 70-300 into play.

chrisjohnson · August 23, 2009

Thanks to all of you for your help.

I went to the store yesterday and tried the three candidates on my 40D:
- the 55-250 IS (price x)
- the 70-300 USM/IS (price 1.8x)
- the 70-200 f4 USM/IS (price 4.5x)

Shooting with the lenses gave just the results you might expect from the price ratios. The 70-200 f4 is brilliant. Sharp as a tack, fast. The nifty 250 was .. nifty. I am sure lots of people get a lot of fun from this lens but it is not for me.

The 70-300 seems to have been crafted to sit on an xxD - a perfect match. (It probably was crafted to match the xxD). The shots I took from the hand on automatic when I got home exceeded my expectations. The IS is fantastic. Easy to shoot sharply from the hand even at long focus lengths, colors are spot on, the weight and feel is just right. A joy to use.

So thanks again, Dgrinners!

ziggy53 · August 23, 2009

Congratulations on the new glass Goldenballs.

The Canon EF 70-300mm, f/4-5.6 IS USM has some lens elements that are very similar to an "L" lens configuration, giving it optical properties beyond the typical consumer lenses.

divamum · August 23, 2009

I'm late to the party as I see you've already chosen your lens, but in case somebody searches this thread, I'll add that I really like my 200mm 2.8L. Since it does not have IS there's a bit of a learning curve to getting the most out of it, but once you do, it's a gem. I had the 55-250is before it (sold it to pay for the 200) which I do think is a very capable lens for the price, but I needed something faster, and am very happy I made the jump.

In any case, congrats on your new glass - enjoy!

tele for 40D?

Comments