Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
ThePointblank wrote:Look at the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 Lens or, the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens.
If you want a even cheaper lens that performs relatively well, the Tamron 70-210mm f/4 Di VC USD Lens is an option.
Also, what camera do you have? If you have a Canon R series body, that opens up the Canon RF series, and they have a pair of long prime lenses that are fairly cheap.
speedbird52 wrote:My local camera shop is quoting 800 dollars for a used Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L
JakTrax wrote:Unfortunately if you want good image quality — without the softness, vignetting and CA — you're going to have to empty your wallet a bit more.
JakTrax wrote:A solid camera is always a wiser option than a liquid one...
Joking aside there are so many parameters to consider: how fussy are you about image quality? Do you want a camera you can grow with or just a beginner model? How much do you want to spend? And would you rather spend it on the camera or lens(es)? Do you want an advanced point-and-shoot, a DSLR or mirrorless?
What you wish to shoot and where will also determine what lens(es) you'll need (unless you opt for a point-and-shoot, of course).
ftorre82 wrote:Sigma 100-400 contemporary (about 650 new, 400 or so used) is a way better choice for wildlife and plane spotting. A lot of the pictures from my database were taking with these lens and a canon 70d.
LeeYangzao wrote:ftorre82 wrote:Sigma 100-400 contemporary (about 650 new, 400 or so used) is a way better choice for wildlife and plane spotting. A lot of the pictures from my database were taking with these lens and a canon 70d.
I use Sigma 100-400, too, on Nikon D800. Absolutely a decent telephoto lens for aircraft spotting. The image quality and sharpness at 400mm may not as good as Nikon's & Canon's 100-400, but you can't beat the price since it costs less than 1/2.
JakTrax wrote:The EF 70-200 f/4 L would have been my first choice, without doubt. It can be bought new for around $680, so maybe around $400-$500 used. Has no IS but it's optically one of the finest lenses ever produced. Was recommended several times above so I'm not sure why you went with the Tamron...
speedbird52 wrote:How is the Gen 1 Canon 100-400L in comparison to the 70-200? I know it is slower, and the zoom is clunky, but considering I intend to do wildlife photography when not planespotting it would probably make sense for me to have the range available. Sample photos of the lens look pretty decent to me as well
JakTrax wrote:The original EF 100-400L is decent but unfortunately renowned for its copy variation — in other words, if you get a bad one it'll be pretty soft, likely for much of the zoom range. I went through 3 before settling on one that was pretty close to perfect... until the IS went in it after about 2 years (another issue with the lens and a very expensive repair!). In the end I sold it in order to fund the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS MkII. The 70-200s certainly produce sharper and more consistent results than the first 100-400L.
If you were intent on getting a 100-400 I'd recommend saving for the MkII (it's far superior), or going with the Sigma version (which is apparently about on par with a decent copy of the 100-400L MkI).
With superzooms the old adage 'you get what you pay for' really is relevant. The less you pay, the less quality will be delivered.
For pure bang for buck the original EF 70-200 f/4 L is absolutely unbeatable. It's tack-sharp pretty much from corner to corner, across the entire zoom/aperture range.
speedbird52 wrote:JakTrax wrote:The original EF 100-400L is decent but unfortunately renowned for its copy variation — in other words, if you get a bad one it'll be pretty soft, likely for much of the zoom range. I went through 3 before settling on one that was pretty close to perfect... until the IS went in it after about 2 years (another issue with the lens and a very expensive repair!). In the end I sold it in order to fund the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS MkII. The 70-200s certainly produce sharper and more consistent results than the first 100-400L.
If you were intent on getting a 100-400 I'd recommend saving for the MkII (it's far superior), or going with the Sigma version (which is apparently about on par with a decent copy of the 100-400L MkI).
With superzooms the old adage 'you get what you pay for' really is relevant. The less you pay, the less quality will be delivered.
For pure bang for buck the original EF 70-200 f/4 L is absolutely unbeatable. It's tack-sharp pretty much from corner to corner, across the entire zoom/aperture range.
My local camera shop has one that looks in good condition and seems to work, but is selling for 700 dollars. (Substantially cheaper than other places) should I safely assume that is one of the "soft" lenses?
speedbird52 wrote:My only complaint is that when it came to birds, there were a lot of situations where the lens would focus on the wrong thing, or not focus on the birds face.
vikkyvik wrote:speedbird52 wrote:My only complaint is that when it came to birds, there were a lot of situations where the lens would focus on the wrong thing, or not focus on the birds face.
Are you using multiple AF points? Try using a single AF point, and place it squarely on the area you want in focus.
JakTrax wrote:The camera will be letting you down more than the lens, however DSLR technology is now beginning to show its age when focussing on small, erratically-moving objects. The 7DII and 90D are better suited to action/wildlife photography.
I'm glad you like your new lens anyway — what it lacks in range it certainly makes up for in image quality! What did you pay for it? New or used?
Karl
vikkyvik wrote:speedbird52 wrote:My only complaint is that when it came to birds, there were a lot of situations where the lens would focus on the wrong thing, or not focus on the birds face.
Are you using multiple AF points? Try using a single AF point, and place it squarely on the area you want in focus.
speedbird52 wrote:vikkyvik wrote:speedbird52 wrote:My only complaint is that when it came to birds, there were a lot of situations where the lens would focus on the wrong thing, or not focus on the birds face.
Are you using multiple AF points? Try using a single AF point, and place it squarely on the area you want in focus.
I am using the center point
speedbird52 wrote:Mirrorless is not too popular with wildlife photographers for some reason, but I am considering the transition
vikkyvik wrote:speedbird52 wrote:vikkyvik wrote:
Are you using multiple AF points? Try using a single AF point, and place it squarely on the area you want in focus.
I am using the center point
That's good (in my opinion). How large is the bird, and how far away?
JakTrax wrote:speedbird52 wrote:Mirrorless is not too popular with wildlife photographers for some reason, but I am considering the transition
The thing with mirrorless is that it has advanced greatly only in the past 1-2 years, and many DSLRs owners still perceive it to be the same sluggish technology it was 4-5 years ago. It's also psychological, with some DSLR owners becoming anti-mirrorless because they feel it is quickly rendering their kit obsolete (which is nonsense).
Canon's latest mirrorless AF is far better for sports and wildlife than any DSLR, save for the latest iteration of the 1D. That's not to say the AF in bodies like the 7DII and 90D is poor; just that the on-sensor AF you get with mirrorless is so incredibly good.
Using a single AF point with your particular DSLR is good advice, however each time your subject leaves the area covered by that AF point it'll focus elsewhere if it can. In other words, it can be tricky tracking erratically-moving subjects. Cameras such as the 90D have a mode which clumps a small area of AF points together and uses them to better track a fiddly subject. Naturally the more AF points the camera is using, the less reliable each becomes but this mode strikes a good balance between accuracy and consistency. I'm pretty sure the 90D also has a dedicated tracking mode, although talk of such modes is perhaps moot since your Rebel T2i doesn't feature them.
Karl