Need advise for a new lens

[Judy Becker]

I have a Mark iii and use a 28-135 when the 24-70 isn't enough reach and the 100-400 is just too big and to large to handle indoors. I've used the 28-300 which is a super lens but too large and heavy. I'm looking for something with a little longer reach past the 28-135 but light in weight. Any suggestion anyone?

Judy

[Doug West]

You didn't mention your budget, but my vote would go toward the 70-200, version 2.
It has a 2.8 constant aperture, so it'll be great also indoors.

As far as weight, the 70-200 is 3.28 pounds vs 3.67 for the 28-300. So you save
a little in weight.

Right now you can get on from B&H for @$2200.

Throw in a 1.4 extender and you've increased your reach a little more.

I use the 70-200 as my 'walk around' lens.

If the v2 70-200 is to expensive, the version 1 can be had for around $1400.

Doug

[Bob Ettinger]

Judy,

Take a look at this one 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS. Light weight and very sharp. Another is the EF 400 F5.6L AF. It depends on what you are using it for.

Bob

[Judy Becker]

The price isn't the problem but the size .... 70-200 is very similar in size and weight to my 100-400 or the 28-300. I was looking for something in the 28-135 size. I've tried the Tamrom 28-300 but doesn't focus well on the Mark because it's actually made for the D series.

[Judy Becker]

I'm using for indoor group and stage performers and want to stay away from a heavy and large white lens. I guess I'm looking for the Holy Grail that doesn't even exist.

[Judy Becker]

Bob what is the low light focus like ? I use a lens for many shots where flash is not allowed and shot at high ISOs

[Michael Gerald-Yamasaki]

Bob what is the low light focus like ? I use a lens for many shots where flash is not allowed and shot at high ISOs

Judy,

Greetings. While I shoot Nikon, I've shot no-flash theater/indoors performance for years. Sounds like the 70-200f/2.8 is your lens. I've shot with the Nikon equivalent and suspect that the IQ, high speed & IS will overshadow the size and weight issues over time. Fast lens equals big lens as you get into telephoto. I've since switched to a 200f/2 (now that's a big & heavy lens!).

Cheers,

-Michael-

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

It sounds like you want the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. This is substantially lighter than the 100-400, and will take 1.4X TC in a pinch. The non-IS version is even cheaper, but indoors you'll want IS.

[Bob Ettinger]

Bob what is the low light focus like ? I use a lens for many shots where flash is not allowed and shot at high ISOs

Judy, I never tried to use it in that type of situation but it is sharp and light. I used it outdoors for birds/mammals


Bob

[Judy Becker]

Thanks for all the responses .

[Julie Brown]

Hi Judy. I recently bought the Canon 135mm f2.0 L for shooting youth sports in poorly lit gyms and pools. This lens is lightweight and black. I got very nice results with it hand-held. You could add a 1.4X extender for more reach.

[David Stephens]

I like Julie's suggestion of the 135/f2, if you can get close enough to the stage.

The 70-200mm f/4L IS is also excellent, but you'll have to push the ISO up around 1600, which your MkIII is up to, if you are. It's a very light, compact zoom, with super IQ. Sorry, but it's white, but you'll get over that fast.

[brian simpson]

Hi Judy. The lens i would recomend for you would be the 200-2.8 Canon prime. This is a small, black, fast and sharp. 780 $

[Jack Breakfast]

The 70-300L is magnificent and not quite as big and heavy as the 100-400 and it has the newest IS. I love the lens, as it's quite versatile and the images look great throughout the range, particularly at 300mm.
I also agree with Brian above - the 200mm f2.8 is wonderful, and quite light. It handles the 1.4 teleconverter very well too, which would give you a 280mm f4. Another note about the 200mm f2.8 - it delivers some gorgeous bokeh, if that's your cup of tea...