# Tele lens help



## Anthonyhnj (Feb 20, 2013)

A few weeks ago I purchased a Canon 60d and had asked for lens help on this forum. I decided to return the camera and buy the canon 6d, which I really like. I need some help deciding on a telephoto lens. It's not often that I shoot on the Long end, But there are times when I would like to have it, i.e. kids soccer game, zoo etc... Am I better off buying the 70-200 f4 usm or the 70-300 usm is. The question that keeps coming up in my head is will 200mm be long enough. I'm sort of on a budget for this lens choice, so that why I decided on these two. Your thoughts, suggestions? 
My current lens line up is 17-40, 24-105 and 40 2.8

Also, is the canon 100 macro L that much better than the non 100 macro non L some shots will be on a tripod indoors and some handheld outdoors. 

Thanks, 
Anthony


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 20, 2013)

Anthonyhnj said:


> A few weeks ago I purchased a Canon 60d and had asked for lens help on this forum. I decided to return the camera and buy the canon 6d, which I really like. I need some help deciding on a telephoto lens. It's not often that I shoot on the Long end, But there are times when I would like to have it, i.e. kids soccer game, zoo etc... Am I better off buying the 70-200 f4 usm or the 70-300 usm is. The question that keeps coming up in my head is will 200mm be long enough. I'm sort of on a budget for this lens choice, so that why I decided on these two. Your thoughts, suggestions?
> My current lens line up is 17-40, 24-105 and 40 2.8
> 
> Also, is the canon 100 macro L that much better than the non 100 macro non L some shots will be on a tripod indoors and some handheld outdoors.
> ...


I'd get the 70-300mm L or the 70-200mmf/4 L IS. Pass on the 70-300mm IS. Another good lens is the 100-400mmL, some don't like push pull, its fine by me.
Any Macro lens is going to be a great lens as far as IQ goes. If you are on a tripod it doesn't matter much which one you choose. The 100L is my walking around lens, the IS lets me walk around and get all kinds of shots that I might not have time to use a tripood for, and I'm impatient in any event. I always seemed to get a lot of oof images with the non IS versions, focus was so slow that I pressed the shutter too soon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2013)

Anthonyhnj said:


> Am I better off buying the 70-200 f4 usm or the 70-300 usm is. The question that keeps coming up in my head is will 200mm be long enough. I'm sort of on a budget for this lens choice, so that why I decided on these two.



Of the two, get the 70-200mm f/4L. The 70-300 non-L is pretty soft in the 200-300mm range, you'll get better images at 200mm with the L lens then cropping. The 6D has great high ISO performance, so you can bump up the ISO to get the shutter speed high enough.



Anthonyhnj said:


> Also, is the canon 100 macro L that much better than the non 100 macro non L some shots will be on a tripod indoors and some handheld outdoors.



For use on a tripod, no meaningful difference. For handheld close up shots (say, 0.25x-0.35x magnification), the IS is a big benefit in good light. In not-so-good light, or at 1:1 macro distances, you'll want the tripod anyway (with close subjects, it's always a challenge to get a deep enough DoF, and that usually requires narrow apertures and thus lots of light, or a tripod).


----------



## Anthonyhnj (Feb 20, 2013)

Is the 100macro l good as a prime lens as well?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 20, 2013)

Anthonyhnj said:


> Is the 100macro l good as a prime lens as well?


The 100L is a prime lens, and is very good.


----------



## Anthonyhnj (Feb 20, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Anthonyhnj said:
> 
> 
> > Is the 100macro l good as a prime lens as well?
> ...


I know its a prime lens, sorry I meant to say used for non macro photos as in a portrait lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2013)

Yes, the 100L does a very good job as a portrait lens on FF (a bit long for my taste on APS-C, though, although it's ok outdoors).


----------



## jasonsim (Feb 20, 2013)

I would get the EF 70-200 f/4L USM over the consumer grade zoom. For about the same money, you are getting excellent build quality and better optics. It's widest aperture is a constant f/4, so you can always add a 1.4x teleconverter later to gain more reach. 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## robbymack (Feb 20, 2013)

I assume you are looking at the 70-300 non L. If so then for sure go for the 70-200 f4 L. If you can save a bit more the f4 IS is also nice but then you'd have the dilemma of whether or not to choose the 70-300L. I own and love the 70-200 f4 IS, someone will have to pry it out of my cold dead hands before I give it up. That being said I bought it when I was shooting crop, had I been shooting full frame I suspect I would have chosen the 70-300L for the added reach.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 20, 2013)

Anthonyhnj said:


> A few weeks ago I purchased a Canon 60d and had asked for lens help on this forum. I decided to return the camera and buy the canon 6d, which I really like. I need some help deciding on a telephoto lens. It's not often that I shoot on the Long end, But there are times when I would like to have it, i.e. kids soccer game, zoo etc... Am I better off buying the 70-200 f4 usm or the 70-300 usm is. The question that keeps coming up in my head is will 200mm be long enough. I'm sort of on a budget for this lens choice, so that why I decided on these two. Your thoughts, suggestions?
> My current lens line up is 17-40, 24-105 and 40 2.8
> 
> Also, is the canon 100 macro L that much better than the non 100 macro non L some shots will be on a tripod indoors and some handheld outdoors.



Perhaps I was lucky and bought an above-average 70-300 IS, but mine was almost as sharp as the L version I replaced it with. I've not used the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/4, but one consideration when comparing it with the 70-300 IS is that the IS may more than make up for loss of sharpness on the f/4 caused by lens movement (especially when you need slower shutter speeds, unless you plan to use a tripod); so that even though in studio conditions the f/4 is sharper, outdoors and off-tripod there may be little or no practical difference. If you have a very steady hand, consider the 200L f/2.8 prime as well.

Also, consider stretching your budget by buying second-hand. You can buy the marvelous 70-200 f/4 IS second-hand for well under $1000 (I've seen some not much more than $700), the 100-400L and 70-300L for c. $1,000, and, for even more reach, the Sigma 50-500 OS for c. $800-$900.

As for the 100L vs non-L macros, the 100L makes an excellent all-purpose lens if you like that focal length. I'm sure the non-L does too, but I like the extra "insurance" IS provides when, as is almost always the case with me, my use is hand-held and non-macro, sometimes in very low light.


----------



## Menace (Feb 20, 2013)

Get the 70-200 f4 - excellent value, I was really happy with mine. 

If you hand hold, IS will help your macro shots but for tripod work, the non IS will be fine. I've had both and both are really good for non macro work esp portraits. 

Cheers


----------



## brad-man (Feb 20, 2013)

robbymack said:


> I assume you are looking at the 70-300 non L. If so then for sure go for the 70-200 f4 L. If you can save a bit more the f4 IS is also nice but then you'd have the dilemma of whether or not to choose the 70-300L. I own and love the 70-200 f4 IS, someone will have to pry it out of my cold dead hands before I give it up. That being said I bought it when I was shooting crop, had I been shooting full frame I suspect I would have chosen the 70-300L for the added reach.




+1


----------

