Is it worth it?
I currently use an EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM on my 20D and am not at all that happy with it. Maybe someone here could tell me if the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM would be a significant upgrade. I'm more worried about the reach, would a tele converter do well on this lens and if so which one. Bye the way I'm shooting birds with this set up.
Thanks in advance,
Brian
Brian -
you may find the following thread helpful:
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=26890
just about anyone who has tried the 70-200mm f4 L IS USM has been very pleased, and many prefer it over the f2.8 version. i'm happy with mine.
consensus suggests the IS version is definitely the better lens, but double the rpice
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
hope this helps and good luck
peter
Thank you Peter but IS versions aren't an option due to funds issues, But I do appreciate the info.
Hi Brian: One of my favorite combos is the Canon 70-200L F4 and the 1.4 TC. I found the 2.8 too heavy and am so happy that I traded it for the F4. I believe the 70-200 with the 1.4 puts you at 280mm without the crop factor and the quality of photos is produces is amazing.
Another option would be the 300L F4, and you could use it with or without a 1.4 TC. With the TC, you would be at 420mm without the crop factor. This is also a very good quality lens and gives you more reach.
Good luck in your decision.
Hi Brian Fully agree with advise It will be a tough decision If you need reach maybe the 300 will get the nod !!! btw I traded my 2.8 for the 4.0 !! Its really good !!!
.....btw if you could shoot me a PM with your full name so I can do the update ... we all use real names here.
Would a 2X teleconverter matched up to the 70-200mm f/4 still produce good images?
You would lose autofocus on the 20D. I don't know about image quality though.Originally Posted by kylebrian97
On the 70-300 vs 70-200f4L, I made the switch to the 70-200 a little over a year ago. I wish I wouldn't have wasted my money on the 70-300 to begin with and just saved the extra couple of dollars and gotten the f4L first. After using the 70-200, I have now saved for another year and gotten the 400f5.6 and I love it for birds. so, after using the 70-200(if you switch) your next splurge will probably be the 400f5.6, just a warning:D
Dug
It's tough to get great IQ with a 2x. I occasionally use it on a 300mm f/4L IS USM lens and in reasonable light it does OK. The 1.4x from Canon is awesome! You would be better off with the 300/1.4x combo instead of the 70-200/2x anyday.
Though I (once) tried a 500/L IS with my 2x and a 1D MkIII body and the IQ was fantastic, even in soft, subdued light. You get what you pay for I think.
The Canon 70-200 f4 non-IS and IS versions are fabulous lenses. Tests show they are as good as primes through the focal length range. Here's a test of the lens from SLR gear:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...duct/55/cat/11
Any body have any experience with the Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di. Price wise, that's another option I have and really like the reach on it, but don't trust the reviews I've read on it. Would rather have BPN advise all day.
Not sure with that one. I had the Bigma 50-500 for many years until I finally got a 500 4.0L. The Bigma is great on a crop camera as you're shooting through the sweet spot. it's not the fastest AF, but you can get birds in flight and it's great for stills. Just a thought.....
I sold my Tamron 200-500 to Sid Garige here on BPN. I used it for about 1- 1 1/2 years. It was OK. I believe Sid still uses it. I have several friends who use the Sigma "Bigma" 50-500. They like them. Either one is OK.
The 70-200 F4 IS has the rep of being one of the sharpest zooms ever produced. the 1.4 will work well with it. The 2 X will not. My wife uses a 300 F4 IS and 1.4 TC and finds it a great combo. She hand holds it for flight shots and gets great results.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote