20% off all products!   Sale ends tonight at midnight EST.

Return to Main Discussion Page
Discussion Quote Icon

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions
 
 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

Canon Ef 70-200 F/2.8 Is

Looking for reviews from anyone who has used this lens - pros, cons, is it your go to, or do you find yourself ignoring it?

Thanks,
Rebecca

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Edward Fielding

9 Years Ago

Professionals buy Canon bodies just to use that lens. "most celebrated lenses in the Canon EF"

What else are you looking for?

I don't have one - can't afford it and its not really my style. I prefer not to stand out.

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

haha, Edward - is there a reason you prefer not to stand out?

I really want to get this, based on the experience of someone I know who uses it. It will require me to save up for it, because I don't do credit. I just wanted to hear anyone else's viewpoint, after reading the reviews and listening to my friend. I'm cautious when spending that kind of money.

And really not looking for anything else.

Rebecca

 

Edward Fielding

9 Years Ago

What are you going to do with it? Seems to be a favorite of portrait photographers for the boken. I guess wildlife people like it too.

....

Standing out - in my work I'm not interested in attracting attention with a big white lens which causes people to either get nervous or come over and want to talk about equipment. Most of my work is done with a 35mm or 50 mm.

 

Travel Pics

9 Years Ago

Pros - It's fast.

Cons - It costs.

 

Kathleen Bishop

9 Years Ago

I have it but never use it. I have no complaints about the quality but the range is too limited for my needs. I bought it when I bought my first DSLR before I understood what I would need. Now I only use a wide angle zoom for landscapes and a 50-500mm for telephoto shots, and occasionally a macro for closeups. The 70-200 has been sitting in a drawer since just after I bought it. It's in like-new condition and I'm willing to sell it if you don't want to pay full price for a new lens.

 

Edward Fielding

9 Years Ago

There is no debating the quality. The only question is if you need it. If you just want to bring far away things in close get a 400mm prime.

 

Patrick Jacquet

9 Years Ago

It's a great lens I've been using it for several years now.
Not much to say as Canon premium lenses are top quality

I'm using it extensively when covering dance shows in complex light conditions

 

Kathleen Bishop

9 Years Ago

Oops! I'm so sorry, I don't have the Canon, I have the Sigma 70 – 200mm f/2.8!

 

Rich Franco

9 Years Ago

Rebecca,

I've shot with one and with the 24-70 L and then this lens 99% of all your stuff is covered. Are you looking at the newer lens or the original 70-200?


http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/6

Here's the first one:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/

And one of my favorite off brands,along with Tokina, Tamron:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/tamron/lenses/tamron_70-200_2p8_vc

So the question is really, "do you NEED the best lens that Canon makes?"

Especially if a filter is going to be thrown over most of the images???

Rich

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

Thanks for clearing that up, Kathleen!

Edward, I don't go where many people are, I'm usually in the woods, around old structures that have been abandoned, places where I can't find out who owns the property, so to be able to shoot without trespassing is a plus; I want to shoot birds, and other wildlife around here. I have two good macro lenses, but they aren't made to do this. I wanted one more good lens to fill in my repertoire, a zoom of some kind. Often I don't have the health/energy to walk long ways, and my hands often shake if it's one of those days, so something fast with a good auto focus is perfect, if I am not using a tripod. I'd rather shoot manual when I can, but when I can't, I like to have that option. One of my macros does not have the auto focus, and I'm glad I am sitting when I use it!

Thanks for all the input!

Rebecca

 

Thomas Zimmerman

9 Years Ago

Favorite lens in my bag.....that I have the II version and its a beauty.

 

Thomas Zimmerman

9 Years Ago

To clarify I own the Canon 70-200 2.8 L II, and Have shot about 10-15 full days with the Tamron 70-200 2.8 as well. The tamron is a nice nice lens. However, it is not as sharp, especially in the corners, doesn't autofocus nearly as quick or accurate (if you are tracing fast moving subjects), and I also don't think it delivers the color and clarity as nicely when zoomed. I wouldn't hesitate recommending it, but I wouldn't trade my Canon for one.....even though its much less expensive.

Quite frankly that Canon 70-200 is almost enough reason on its own to keep me in a Canon system and not Nikon or another brand, I think that highly of it.

 

Patrick Jacquet

9 Years Ago

If birds and wildlife are really your target then canon 70-200 may not be the best option as it will be "short"... too short
You may need to look for lenses like Canon 135-400 or Tamron 150-600

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

Rich, not know much about the lens, other than what I have read (which is why I'm here) I am looking at the new one. The reviews claim the new one is improved over the old.

I don't know how to compare the off brands with a star brand, other than to ask, because I'm certainly no going to buy them all, then compare! When I purchased the Tokina macro 100 f/2.8, I foolishly did not see if it had auto focus - it doesn't.

You ask So the question is really, "do you NEED the best lens that Canon makes? Especially if a filter is going to be thrown over most of the images???"
Here's my thinking:

I can't run, or walk very far, I need a sharp image to begin with to "throw" filters over anything, as stated, sometimes my hands tremor, sometimes I have to sit in the car and rest the camera on the window. Birds are very quick and I am not, I'm in a wheelchair a lot of times when I'm outside. This lens just seemed to offer a lot of help for me.

Rebecca

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

Patrick, thanks - I am looking to shoot birds near our feeders. We have an immense number of birds at our feeders, we live in the country and in winter especially there are a lot of variety. And we have a lot of unusual birds during migration season. But if I try to sit on my porch (very still of course, and trying to not obvious on the floor of the porch), I can't catch them quick enough. I can move further away with another lens and not spook them when the shutter goes off. Birds aren't the only thing I want to shoot of course, but with my macros, I am limited to flowers, raindrops, still lifes, etc. I want to expand, and I want to not have to buy several lenses.

I am appreciating all of the views, and information - thank you!

Rebecca

 

Adam Jewell

9 Years Ago

I bought this lens in 2011. For three years it sat around and collected dust. What was I going to shoot in the 70-200 range that I wouldn't rather have more flexibility in the field by having a 100 - 400 for wildlife or a 24-105 for closer things? I took a few shots with it when it first came but that was about it.

If physical exertion is a challenge and hand tremors are a concern, this is a heavy lens. The speed may make up for it, but it is heavy.

Fast forward to the last year and all of a sudden I use it all the time and must have it with me. It is perfect for panoramic shots. Sharp as a tack. The 70-200 is a fantastic range for shooting city skylines, landscape panoramics and related things.

From probably half a mile away, the logos on the skyscrapers in Pittsburgh are tack sharp in image like this:

Sell Art Online

It's awesome, it's heavy and its expensive. IMHO, the zoom isn't long enough for wildlife and it doesn't go wide enough for most landscapes unless you are shooting panoramics but when you find something good to use it for it is hard to beat.

 

Gregory Scott

9 Years Ago

That's a good bird feeder lens, no doubt. The speed will give your more shots at dusk and dawn, particularly. However, for the money, you might consider buying a slower lens, a flash, and a few slaves... Flash introduces a lot of problems, particularly dark backgrounds, unless you take additional measures, however. EVERYTHING in photography is a give and take compromise.

 

Edward Fielding

9 Years Ago

I'd attach a modified tripod to the wheel chair. This will take care of the weight factor and add a lot of stability you'll need with a long lens.

http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/other-digital-photography-gear/222075-wheelchair-tripod-combination.html


Other option is to create a blind that would allow you to be closer to your subject. Also be more creative with the bird feeder - put up branches and other places for the birds to land that are more photogenic than the bird feeder.

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

So, an alternative is the 100 - 400?

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens seems to be about $600 less.

Well, I have to do more research. It looks to be heavy as well.

hmm

Rebecca

 

Edward Fielding

9 Years Ago

Speed is what costs. Plus that expensive white color and red band.

When they come with a tripod mount on the lens you know its not made to be handheld.

I have the non-L 75 - 300 which is much less.

mount:
http://www.alzodigital.com/online_store/alzo-wheelchair-camera-mount.htm

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

Edward, I appreciate the link!

We have a lot of shrubbery and a wooden fence near the feeders, plus an old stump and a birdbath, and of course the ground under the shrubbery for the ground feeders.

There are places where we drive to in the mountains here, where I could capture some of the scenery that I can't hike to. When I say wildlife, I am not talking antelope or buffalo (ha!) but deer in my yard feeding, coyotes going past, foxes which have a run right near the house, wild turkeys in the pasture next door, or even horses in the pasture. Sharpshin hawks which snatch a bird and then sit on the fence for a bit. Or even chipmunks.

Rebecca

 

Patrick Garrett

9 Years Ago

I've owned the 70-200 f2.8 IS L II for about 2 years. Great focal length for a full frame. Cons- Expensive and heavy, Pros- everything else. I keep this lens on my camera most of the time. My camera case is even designed for that. Super sharp and fast. Many say that today's cameras don't need a f2.8 lens, but the reason I want f2.8 is depth of field control and the lens at the other end is f32.

I recently went on photo safari in South Africa. I have 6D and 70D Canon bodies. Most of the time I shot with the 70-200 and the EF 2X III extender on my 6D full frame. The great thing is that even with the extender 2 fstop loss (making it a f5.6 lens) it still auto focuses and quickly on any Canon camera body (not so with the f4 version). When I wanted a "big" telephoto I put the combo on my 70D making the effective range 220-640mm. The great news if the 2x III adds little to no distortion or loss of quality in the tests that I've done especially if hand handheld where shutter speed really controls the image sharpness.

The main time I don't use this lens is when I'm walking doing travel photography. The Canon 70-200 is big and heavy, so I give up some quality to save my shoulders and back and use a Tamron 28-300mm which covers a wide focal range at a reasonable weight and size.

Hope this helps.

 

Rich Franco

9 Years Ago

Rebecca,

The 100-400 is a great lens for birds, I've got that older version L lens. Both of these lenses are HEAVY! And I don't know if the either of them will work, hand held for you and not sure that gizmo for the wheelchair is sturdy enough either. I would look for an off brand lighter lens and be happy with that,which in the long run,will produce more images for you than a heavier set-up.

With an investment as big as this, I would recommend that you consider renting either lens first and see if it works for you. I can suggest a few places to rent,

Rich

 

Thomas Zimmerman

9 Years Ago

They make a 70-200 F4 that is much lighter, just as sharp, and much less expensive.

I love the 2.8 for DOF control from portraiture, and for shooting indoors in dark churches, or for dusk shots, and the IS. Really the F4 is a great lens and you only sacrifice a stop of light, and the IS if I remember right. Might be worth looking into if you don't need that extra speed or the IS.

 

Gregory Scott

9 Years Ago

In full sun, a 100-400 zoom makes a good bird feeder lens.
An advantage: smaller angle of view makes it easier to get a clean background.
A disadvantage: at about f5.6, a 100-400 zoom works best in full sun, or dappled light with fill flash.

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

I knew asking for reviews here would be helpful, but it's becoming a little over whelming. :)

EF 70-200 F/2.8 IS lens is $1500-$2200, depending on where you go and what extras you get with it. Seems to be king but heavy. And is it too much lens for my needs?

70-200 F4 lens is $700-$1600, depending on where you go. That's a big difference in price, so what are you losing? Speed? DOF? Quality? (plus not as heavy)

100-499 zoom is around $1600. Does it give quality if not in full sun?

Rich, renting seems a viable option.

Is tulip lens hood better than a full lens hood?

Rebecca



 

Gerry Sibell

9 Years Ago

As Gregory said, the 70-200 can be a bit short for bird feeder shots unless you're using a blind. I have the old version 70-200 2.8L. It's a wonderful lens. I have also been using it for our oldest granddaughter's basketball games. Since I have purchased the Canon 1D MarkII camera, I am able to up the ISO to around 1000. This way, useable images can be gotten in a somewhat poorly lighted gym. I use the 70-200 whenever I can. I have several Canon L lenses but the 70-200 is my favorite.

IMO, the 100-400 5.6L is a good lens for larger mammals. It's a good walk around lens. At 5.6, I don't get good results in poorer light. From what I have read, the newer version 100-400 is a better lens.

All of my small birds in flight are taken with the 70-200 2.8L. Here's an example:

Sell Art Online

 

David Smith

9 Years Ago

With your health considerations and that you're shooting outdoors, I'd recommend the Canon 70-300 4.5-5.6 DO.

Shorter, lighter and sharp.

 

Rich Franco

9 Years Ago

Rebecca,

I really don't think you need to spend $2200 for a lens and a heaavy lens at that. If this new lens is to be used primariliy for birds and birds at your feeder, I would go with a longer lens than the 70-200, you will be frustrated when you need to crop ALL the images to get what youe see in your head! I also don't think that you will see the difference in a $2000 lens and a good slower $700 lens,optically.

I have,as I mentioned, the 100-400 lens and it lives on a tripod. With that said,here is this shot with the 100-400, 1/125,F5.6 and ISO 400 and no tripod,since I didn't have time to get it. In all my years here in Florida, I have never seen a blue bird,only out West! This was from about 60-75 feet away and @400mm, not the sharpest but at least I got a few shots.

Sell Art Online

This was still too short a lens for this image,without cropping too much.

Tulip hoods are generally for wide angle lenses and on the 100-400, I have the full hood and you can make your own!

Rich

 

Debra Chmelina

9 Years Ago

Rebecca, I'm not an expert by any means but I just wanted to give you a heads up for when you do buy something and not make the same mistakes that I did.

You mentioned different prices of the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L IS EF 11 USM LE. I bought the lens from an outfit online that advertised it for $1700. It was a bait and switch scam. They tried to convince me to buy a Tamron instead. They said the Canon lens for $1700 was made of plastic and that the one I wanted (which was the same exact description Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L IS EF 11 USM LE) cost $2300. That should have sent up a red flag but I ordered it anyway. I also ordered a 5D Mark III camera body with it which was a little cheaper than other outfits. They never gave me a tracking number and kept promising me my purchase would be delivered by a certain date. When it didn't arrive on that date I canceled the order. Their response was it's too late and you'll have it in two days. I never got it so I called my credit card company and they refunded my money but the credit card company had to dispute them to get the money back. I think the outfit was trying to buy stuff on the gray market which is why it wasn't delivered on time.

I finally ordered everything I need from B&H and got my order in a few days and am very happy with the lens and camera. Before I bought the equipment I started a thread just like you're doing and with the help of everyone on FAA, I narrowed down what my needs were. I also bought a Tamron 20-70 f2.8 wide angle lens as Rich suggested. I just wanted to give you a heads up about prices that seem too good to be true.

 

Darrell Storts

9 Years Ago

Definitely on my bucket list. Have you ever purchased on the Bill Me Later program? Good way to purchase. Most of the time you can find a good deal and pay interest free installments for up to 24 months or more. Buy the lens and use an extension tube for longer reach. A good portrait lens too from what I understand.






 

Kathleen Bishop

9 Years Ago

I use Bill Me Later whenever I don't think I can pay the full balance on a regular card within a month. I absolutely refuse to pay interest to any credit card company so this is a real blessing. And PayPal bought Bill Me Later so it's easy to transfer funds through PayPal. Without it I never could have paid for the 6D kit and the 7D Mark II without accruing interest.

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

Debra, thanks so much for your heads up. I'm glad you got the money back in the end!

Rich, I think what you have there is an Indigo Bunting.
Now, you said that the the pic was taken with a 100-400, but it was still too short a lens for the distance you were. So, what would have been better?

The Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC is looking better - is the quality as good? What is the foot underneath for?

Darrell, thanks - I will look into that!

Rebecca

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

David Smith mentioned the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM Lens. It seems good as well. Thoughts?

Ohhh gee ...............

 

Kathleen Bishop

9 Years Ago

I actually do have the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens but it doesn't have enough range for wildlife shooting, although it is much lighter than the lens I use. My old 50-400mm broke a couple years ago when I was on vacation so I had to use the 70-300 as a backup. The image quality was OK but I missed a lot of good wildlife shots because I couldn't zoom in close enough.

 

Rich Franco

9 Years Ago

Rebecca,

What camera do you have? Don't you have an APS-C sensored camera? Or do you have a full frame? If APS-C, that changes everything! the 70-200, now becomes a 112-320mm and the 100-400 becomes a 160-640mm!

The "foot" underneath is the tripod mount for the lens. The lenses are so heavy, that they have to mount the camera and the lens on the tripod,which shares the weight. If you had this heavy lens on the camera and the camera was mounted to the tripod, you could damage the lens and/or the camera or both.

You can also buy a 2X converter, or a 1.4X converter and this will let you switch from a 100-400 lens, to a 140-560mm lens with the 1.4 OR 200-800mm lens in the case of the 2X! And the converters are pretty cheap too. You give up 1 stop,usually when using the converter.

Debra, How do you like the Tamron?

Rich

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

Rich, I have a Canon EOS Rebel T3i which, I understand is a APS-C camera. I think.

I thought you would say that about the foot.

I was hoping to be able to learn to take photos like Gerry Sibell's birds.



 

Debra Chmelina

9 Years Ago

Hi Rich,

I haven't used the Tamron that much and really have nothing to compare it to. As you know I'm just beginning to explore the possibilities. The foot on the Canon 70-200 makes it really easy to mount the camera and lens to the tripod. I leave the plate attachment on the lens all the time so when I'm ready to use it, the camera and lens just slides right on. I also love my tripod....it's so light and compact and yet it can handle more than enough weight.

Actually, it's called the tripod mount and it wraps around the lens with a foot that attaches to a plate which attaches to the tripod. Oh yes, I see you said tripod mount. Had to read it again.

 

Rich Franco

9 Years Ago

Rebecca,

Here's another example of how "short" even a long lens can be for bird stuff. This was taken through the open kitchen window and through the screen porch, about 16 feet or so,lenst to bird and this is the uncropped version. I never take photos of Hummers, just not that good at it and the gals and guys that do will know that!!! LOL!

400mm, 1/800th second,F5.6,ISO 800, and as mentioned about 16 feet.

Photography Prints

So with your Rebel, which is indeed an APS-C sensor, the numbers above will be what any of those lenses will "look" like through the viewfinder,which for birding, is a big advantage!

Debra, you got a good lens and a good tripod,and I'm glad! Some lenses have a tripod collar mount and you can swing the lens from horizontal to vertical,with out changing the tripod head,pretty neat!

Here are the other 2 shots: one cropped and the other not cropped,

Art Prints

Sell Art Online

Rich

 

Michelle Wrighton

9 Years Ago

I bought the non IS version in 2008 I think it was and couldn't be happier with it. I have a nifty fifty, but use the big gun 98% of the time.

I use a monopod anyway due to the weight (I have fibromyalgia so muscle fatigue sets in easily) so the IS version was a waste of money for me. I use it for everything from sports, to animal and people portraits, wildlife and panoramic landscapes (shot horizontal or vertical, multiple shots and stitched together).

 

Rich Franco

9 Years Ago

Rebecca,

Here's an example of the APS-C and Full Frame sensors.

Sell Art Online

" and the 100-400 becomes a 160-640mm!" which is a much better lens length for birding and adding a good 1.4 converter and you would then have a 224mm-896mm lens!!! A monster lens!

I would look at other full frame lenses in this range,something a bit lighter and then compare. No need to spend Canon L lens pricing for birding, if the budget is an issue,

Rich

 

Gregory Scott

9 Years Ago

you might consider a wimberly head, and some sort of clamp on-substituted for a tripod to clamp to your wheel chair, if supporting a heavy lens might be an issue. If you use iso over 400, you can get some good photos in shade, but in my opinion, you are on the fringes of what is useful. I always recommend considering a full frame lens, because someday you will upgrade your body to a full frame sensor, and then you will be glad you paid more for your lens. L sharpness however, might be traded for an ordinary lens, with additional camera support. We couuld also talk about using a tripod and cable release, and pre-frame where the bird will be at the feeder. I get all my hummingbird photos this way.

 

John Crothers

9 Years Ago

I have the lens. As mentioned it is probably not as long as you think. It won't bring things as close as you think.

What I would recommend is going to Borrowlenses.com and renting this lens. It won't be super cheap to rent (about $83.00/week) but that is a better option than buying a lens and finding out it's not what you need.

http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/Canon_70-200mm_f2.8_IS_II?source=auto-suggest

 

Mark Heslington

9 Years Ago

I shoot with the original non-IS version and I love it. I use it mainly on a tripod for landscape work so the IS is irrelevant. It's not long enough for wildlife photography but even handheld its a fantastic lens. I'm happy with mine and won't be upgrading to the new version although I have heard that the images with the IS versions are slightly softer than the non-IS version. Whatever versions you go for you will not be disappointed, it has to be Canon's flagship lens.

 

Christy Cox

9 Years Ago

Hi Rebecca!
Thank you for starting this thread as I was curious abt that lens myself. I started with the Canon Rebel T3i(love that camera) and my favorite lens was the 55-250, yet when I began photographing birds it did leave me "short". I tried a friends Canon 100-400 and fell in love with it and bought my own! Great lens, yet it is heavy so i typically use a tripod. For the holidays, I received the Tamron 150-600 and enjoying that too; however, that one is definitely a heavy beast so it lives on the tripod unless I just want a documentary photo for myself (like capturing 3 raccoon's eating from the bird feeder late at night:) The reviews said the Tamron would be slower and I did not really understand what that meant until I used it-best way to describe that is I was able to capture a bird flying off with the canon lens but I have a lot of branch photos (ie no bird) with the Tamron - so i have learned to adjust when to take the shot with the Tamron. And others said the extra 200mm would take some getting use to b/c it would be darker and I have experienced that so I would need to adjust some part of the "triangle". I have really enjoyed both lens. While not a review of the lens you asked for, I hope that helps!

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

I thank everyone who has so far added their experience and suggestion. I'll confess, I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed.

Gary Sibell mentioned he uses flashes when he's shooting to grab birds in flight like he does. I think that may not be in my near future.

I have a good tripod, one that has a collar mount which can swing the lens from horizontal to vertical,with out changing the tripod head. As I study the photo of the lenses with the foot, I am guessing that the lens screws into the the body, then the foot is screwed into the collar mount on the tripod, rather than the camera body? Or with the camera body on the widget that fits into the mount?

I also have a cable release. Gregory, are you differing in your opinion from Rich's about the lens? If in the future I graduate to a full frame sensor body, are you recommending getting the large lens?

Rich, are you saying that the camera body you used for the hummingbird is NOT ab APS-C, so that is the reason the picture was not nice as you'd prefer? And that if I had the 100-400, my pictures would be sharper because of the APS-C?

Hope I did not offend, but I am determined to understand all this!

Rebecca

 

Rich Franco

9 Years Ago

Christy,Rebecca,

When lens people talk about "slower" lenses, they generally mean the F-stop, so the Canon is an F4.5 to F5.6., so this means that the lens doesn't stay at the "same" F-stop,if you zoom out the lens. You start at 100mm and F4.5 and then when you get to 400mm, the F-stop now is F5.6. Believe it or not, this saves you money! If the lens was a constant F4.0, it might cost twice as much and be even heavier!

Just realized I really didn't explain "Fast vs Slow" lenses. A very fast lens, may have a maximum aperture of F1.2(very expensive) and this allows the photogrpaher to open the lens much more than a standard, F3.5 or F2.8 lens. So the F1.2 is much "faster" then the slower F3.5 lens. Genrerally the faster the "glass"(lens) the more of it is needed, in the front and thereby, much more expensive.

A Canon 500mm L lens, F4, costs almost $10,000 and it stays at F4,since it's a prime lens,

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754507-USA/Canon_5124B002_500mm_f_4L_EF_IS.html

A 400mm F5.6 L lens is "only" $1400!!!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12129-USA/Canon_2526A004_400mm_f_5_6L_USM_Autofocus.html

The "other" slow is the actual focusing speed, so the Tamron might focus slower than the Canon, which isn't the best in the world either!

The foot or tripod mount on the lens, gets "screwed" or attached to the collar. Some camera/lens combinations sometimes don't work on ALL tripods/heads.

Gregory is suggesting that you do the same with your birdfeeder shots. Prefocus and pre-compose your shot on the empty birdfeeder and then with a cable release, you can just click the shutter release on the cable and take photos! That's what I did with the hummingbird feeder shots. I set up my tripod and camera/lens,manually focused on the birdfeeder and then when the hummers showed up, just sat there and clicked the shutter!

Rebecca, no, my sensor is full frame and it's just that I'm not that good at or have the right equipment to photograph hummers.

Rebecca, no, I'm saying and the image that I posted above, with the red and green circles,shows that if you buy a FX lens, which is a lens that is designed for FULL FRAME cameras and put that lens on your smaller, (see green square above) sensor, it will give you the appearence of having a much longer lens. If you buy a DX lens, which are lenses designed for smaller sensors, like your APS-C sensor, it will look like what the lens says, so a 400mm DX lens on your camera, will look like a 400mm lens! Stay with me now! BUT if you put an FX lens, FULL FRAME lens on your camera, 400mm, it will look like a 560mm lens, since there is a 1.6 factor difference. Some math, I know but here goes: The 1.6 factor comes from the reason that if you look at the image and I'll just post it here now:

Photography Prints

So the green box is your smaller sensor, an APS-C sensor, and the red circle is the "IMAGE CIRCLE" from a full sized FX lens. OK so far? When you look at your small green box and then at the red circle, you see that ALL that stuff outside the green box, is basically wasted!!! BUT what is inside the green box and hits your sensor is the "crop" from the middle of the full frame's "image circle". ERGO, it appears larger, about 1.600000% larger! So, you take that number 1.6 and multiple ANY full frame lens you are looking at and will be used on your camera and come up with what it will look like through the viewfinder!

1.Test: a full frame 500mm lens on Rebecca's Canon T3i Rebel camera will look like, through the viewfinder like a.....................Fill in the blank!
2. 2 photogrpahers are coming towards each other, one at 4 miles an hour and one at 3 miles an hour.........just kidding!

Alright now, any questions?

Rich

p.s. Image circle is the term used to show what area, from the back of the lens, the small lens hits the film or in our case, the sensor. ALL lenses are round and therefore, the image at the back of the lens is round and ALL film and now sensors are rectangular(some square) and that's why there is a circle AND a box in this diagram!

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

1.Test: a full frame 500mm lens on Rebecca's Canon T3i Rebel camera will look like, through the viewfinder like a 660?

All right, this is slowly becoming clearer, as I read over it more than once. (I am so grateful for your patience!)

Is this then, what you are suggesting?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162616-USA/Canon_2577A002AA_100_400mm_f_4_5_5_6L_IS_USM.html



 

Rich Franco

9 Years Ago

Rebecca,

Just finished grading all the papers and unfortunately, you got an F, well and F+ for trying!!!

500 X 1.6 = 800MM.

I'm suggesting that a lens in this range, might be good. I don't think you need to pay for Canon glass, just a good tele like this, Tamron,Tokina,Sigma,etc. a zoom is best,since it will help with cropping or composing your image. ANY full frame lens is good, gooder for later,when you buy a full frame camera.

I would pass on the wheelcare tripod mounty thing, since I doubt, it could handle a heavy lens and your camera. Better, use the technique that Greg and I mentioned, a cable release on a pre-focused spot and then with the camera on a real tripod,actually, the lens on the tripod, you can sit there and snap away as the birds come and go!

If you really want to get fancy, get a wireless shutter release and have the camera 10-15 feet away and then shoot from your house!!!

Rich

 

Paul Velgos

9 Years Ago

I've owned both the version 1 and 2 of this lens. Both are excellent lenses. Version 2 is a little sharper. Version 1 can probably found cheaper as refurbished or used.

I haven't read this thread but if you're planning on shooting portraits it can create beautiful images. Lately I've mostly been shooting landscapes and cityscapes so I haven't been using it at all. Too limited of a range for me. You seem to shoot a lot of nature. If that's what you plan to use it for, I'd recommend something more versatile like a 28-300mm or even something longer.

 

Rich Franco

9 Years Ago

Paul,

I've used that lens and seems heavy to me. Nice range, but not the lightest!

Rich

 

Paul Velgos

9 Years Ago

Yes very heavy, metal, and solid. Amazing lens if you need a 70-200mm. I'm going smaller and lighter these days. Forgot to mention I'm talking about the VR version.

 

Bellesouth Studio

9 Years Ago

argh, I'm almost too embarrassed to post. I added instead of multiplying. Thanks at least for the F+ for effort! :)

Thanks Rich, I will put the savings plan in motion.

I have a show set up today, for the month of March. Thankfully, we packed the car last night, and I will sit in the wheelchair as my husband and a friend hang everything. I get to delegate!

Thanks, Paul, for weighing in.

And off I go.


Rebecca

 

Donnie Whitaker

9 Years Ago

I purchased the non IS version of the Canon 70-200MM f/4L a few months ago and really like it. I didn't have the extra expendable cash to go with the IS, but I read great reviews on the non-IS so took the chance. I have been able to get razor sharp images with it, and as long as you don't move to much, not having IS has not been an issue. The only set back is that it doesn't have as much reach as I thought it would, so if you are shooting birds, you will probably want more reach. I was in the mountains the other day and shot birds around the feeder. I got some good images, but kept wishing I could get in just a tad closer.

 

Rich Franco

9 Years Ago

Donnie,

That's a great lens too! I never use IS,since almost ALL my shots are on a tripod. A 24-70 L lens and your lens just about covers '"most" photography needs!

Rebecca,

I guess I won't be sending over my taxes to be done this year!!! LOL! DON'T BE EMBRASSED!!! EVERYONE here started the same way, DUMB! I did! Now I'm just "LD", less dumb! Keep looking for the right lens and remember my images that I uploaded for this thread. Even a 400mm lens will not be enough for most images. But with your APS-C sensor, it will help. I'll try and look around if I get a chance(and remember!) later. I've got a photo shoot with a friend in an hour,so I'll be gone most of the day, if the weather doesn't go south!

Keep asking questions or email me privately(wuss) and I'll answer them, if I can,

Rich

 

Paul Cowan

9 Years Ago

I've got the original (non-IS) version, it's a really outstanding lens, even used wide-open, it's good for close-up sports, like tennis and for creating stitched panoramas, among other things.
Art Prints

 

Mike Savad

9 Years Ago

i have the f4 version. i don't use it much. from what i remember, i liked it, but i needed more range in both directions. the only problem (though its designed that way), is that the lens is white. and tells everyone within a 1 mi radius you have an expensive canon lens on it. its good it's white for heat, but it sticks out.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

 

Rich Franco

9 Years Ago

Rebecca,

Here are 2 more shots with the full frame camera and the 100-400 lens, @400mm.

Photography Prints


Sell Art Online

Not sure of this type hawk? Coopers or Sharp-shinned?

Descriptions have the camera info...........

Rich

 

This discussion is closed.