70-200 IS f/4 L?

Genoma · 1 Sep 2013 at 15:12

So I'm considering getting a telephoto next. I want it mainly for animals for when we decide going to the zoo or during trips in wales, maybe for some action shots. Probably will be my least used lens. The 10-22 and 17-55 f/2.8 cover most of my needs.

Thinking about the 70-200 IS f/4 L. On the budget side the new EFS 55-250 USM is also making me think.

Upgrade to full frame is not an issue, not going to happen any time soon. IQ wise though I'm trying to weigh in the price of these 2.

Any thoughts? Any other considerations?

Genoma · 1 Sep 2013 at 15:17

Problem with Lightroom presets

edit - wrong post..

Nexus · 1 Sep 2013 at 15:24

All down to your own personal budget really.

The 70-200 is the better lens though.

D.P. · 1 Sep 2013 at 15:31

For wildlife 200mm is too short on a crop camera, I would look atone of the 70-300mm options.

Genoma · 1 Sep 2013 at 15:37

Don't think I'll be doing too much bird spotting DP. I had the EFS 70-300 and wasn't too impressed with the IQ are are you suggesting the 70-300L ?

King Damager · 1 Sep 2013 at 15:50

200 isn't long enough for most things, nevermind just birds.

Also 100-400L > 70-300L (just an FYI if you go down that route)

kd

D.P. · 1 Sep 2013 at 15:52

Genoma said:
Don't think I'll be doing too much bird spotting DP. I had the EFS 70-300 and wasn't too impressed with the IQ are are you suggesting the 70-300L ?

For birds you will need longer than 300mm on crop, no just regular wildlife will need a 300mm minimum. At a zoo you can get away with a 70-200 most of the time but for wildlife, even large animals, you will need longer. Furthermore most British wildlife is small and/or less approachable do you need longer lenses. Even with large red deer you might not find 200mm suffient for many situations and shots.

I'm surprised you didn't like the canon 70-300, maybe a bad copy. I have the mikon equivalnt and it is mostly as sharp as my 70-200mm f2.8 VR over the same focal range. It should certainly be sharper than the 50-250mm you are considering.

Maybe have a look at the at the tamron 70-300mm VC.

D.P. · 1 Sep 2013 at 15:53

King Damager said:
200 isn't long enough for most things, nevermind just birds.

Also 100-400L > 70-300L (just an FYI if you go down that route)

kd

Yeah, 100-400L should, a.so be in consideration if wildlife interests you, it is just more expensive and heavier than the 70-300.

Phal · 1 Sep 2013 at 18:37

70-200mm F4L is amazingly sharp but as people have mentioned, lens is quite lacking for Wildlife and Birds! It might be nice in a zoo or with animals you can get close to but otherwise the 100-400mm is probably your best bet.

V F · 1 Sep 2013 at 22:48

Phal said:
70-200mm F4L

I was shocked how sharp it is.

FreeStream · 2 Sep 2013 at 20:44

I have one and I haven't really noticed a lack of length vs my 70-300.

Great lens though.

Phal · 2 Sep 2013 at 21:52

V F said:
I was shocked how sharp it is.

Yeah, at one time it was my longest lens and I bumped into a fox when out wandering so I took plenty of pics. The fox was quite a distance away but I was still able to crop in nice and tight since the shots were uber sharp

Love that lens... Shame I always want longer! Also a shame my 100-400mm isn't as sharp because then I'd marry it lol