Birds & Lizards EF Lens

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

Canon EF USM 'L' lenses. I would be pleased if I could seek your assistance, to help me decide on the purchase of one of the following lenses:....... 1) 200mm- f2.8 (second-hand),....... 2)70-200mm- f4 (new),....... 3) 300mm- f4 (second-hand)....... 4) 70-200mm- f2.8 (second-hand). My main subjects are birds and lizards. Not for use at extra-long range (I have a tripod and a 600 glass for that). The camera is Canon EOS-5 and Manfrotto monopod. The 70-200mm -f2.8 is probably the heaviest lens I would consider (around 1,310 grams). I have a 1.4 X extender that I will want to use occasionally. At this time I am favouring the 200mm-f2.8 lens. Oh! I do like to use a "fill"-flash when close enough. ............. Thank you.

-- Garnet Cook (garnet_cook@one.net.au), January 02, 2000

Answers

Garnet: I currently own and love the 70-200/2.8L and 300/4 (IS) along with the EOS 1.4 TC, and I've previously owned the 200/2.8L; all are excellent lenses. With regard to your question, for some reason I'm leaning toward the 300/4, but in the end only you can answer this question. Down the road, you might well decide you need both the 70-200 and the 300/4! The 1.4 TC is superb glass, but as you know, when things are happening quickly, it can be a bit of a pain to quickly and safely add/remove it to/from a lens, but with practice this certainly can be done. Because you mention lizards and birds, I'm thinking that 300mm and 420mm (300 X 1.4TC) might be more useful than 70-200 and 98-280 (70-200 X 1.4 TC) or 200 and 280 (200 x 1.4 TC). Again though, you're the one who must live with your final decision, not us! Happy shopping!

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), January 03, 2000.

Garnet, I own the 70-200/2.8 and the 300/4 and both are excellent lenses so I think you just have to take a stand on focal length and weight etc, which I can't really help you on. However I did want to make one point which is that neither of these lenses focuses particularly close. Thus, if you want high magnification (which I typically do for lizards) you will almost certainly have to use an extension tube or a converter or both. The only alternative I can think of that you haven't mentioned is the 300/4 IS, which is developing a reputation for being almost as good as the 300/4 (but probably not better) but which does focus a bit closer. Note that the three of these lenses are comparable in size/weight, though the 70-200/2.8 is slightly heavier (at least it feels that way) and does not have a built in hood.

-- Lanier Benkard (lanierb@leland.stanford.edu), January 05, 2000.

Kurt and Lanier, thank you both for your response. You both mentioned the 300/4(IS) and Lanier mentioned min focussing distance and made me aware of the importance of this feature when photographing lizards. [I recall being too close on several occasions]. However, this 300/4(IS) is out of my budget, hence, not on the "shopping list". All lenses mentioned were similar price in Australia (taking note that some/most,that I have selected, are second hand). Considering this selection, after some deep thought, I do beleive, my main reason for wanting this lens is to catch those unexpected shots that are usually missed through set-up time. So it comes down to convenience and that relates to WEIGHT! This means my decision is down to the 200/2.8 and the new 70-200/4, which are both less than 800 grams. Now, with the criteria that extention tube(s) and/or Close-up lens may be required [I've never used either], I choose to select a prime lens as opposed to a zoom. Truely, I have never had an f2.8 lens and I am looking forward to having plenty of light in my view-finder. So my selection (with a lot of help from my friends) is the (second-hand) 200/f2.8L. I still have to check out the lens hood........Thanks again

-- Garnet Cook (garnet_cook@one.net.au), January 25, 2000.

Garnet: First: You're most welcome! Second: The 200/2.8L is a marvelous lens, and you will be impressed! I admire the fact that you listened carefully to our opinions about your options, and that you made up YOUR mind as to what will best suit your needs and budget. If you decide to invest in an EOS tele-convertor for this lens, do keep an eye out for the optional tripod mounting ring or collar that is available for this lens, because the lens will be very unbalanced with an extender attached, using only the camera-mounted tripod plate. Also, if you have a choice, the 200/2.8L II offers a better lens hood than the original "MK I" version, but this is a rather minor point. Enjoy!

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), January 26, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ