EOS telephoto zoom options

[NJH]

Amongst the various Canon telephoto lenses what do you reckon are the current best options for use with a 1V? Mostly looking to use for grabbed landscape shots (things you see whilst driving around with the camera slung in the back), hiking short to medium distances and secondary uses a little of everything one would use such a lens for (motorsports, wildlife, aircraft). Mixture of colour slide and B&W film. Will also be a mixture of handheld and monopod, big fan of monopods. It occurs to me that for a film shooter, looking for a deal on the 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM II is still the king. However they seem to be about twice the price here of the same lens in its F4 incarnation. The 100-400 options seem very popular but they are f5.6 and one could do the same with the 70-200 F2.8 and a 2x teleconverter (and of course benefit from the F2.8 when not using the converter). Only looking at secondhand, so many of these lenses available in mint to near mint condition it seems crazy to pay new retail prices. Purchase price for me is more of a question of retained value and usability than the raw number. Decisions, decisions. Would be interested to hear of your experiences on film EOS cameras.

 

[EdSawyer]

skip the "dust pump" 100-400 unless you have no other choice. Even a straight 200/2.8 is a better lens. The 70-200s just got refreshed with mk III (I think) so expect prices of the Mk IIs to drop soon. I'd go for the f/4 version probably, chances are it's as good optically and lighter/smaller. I use primes myself but the 70-200 and the 24-70mk 2 are really nice zooms.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I had several L lenses, the only one I keep is 70-200 F4 L.
It works 100% with cheap Tamron AF x2 tele converter.

 

[flatulent1]

The 70-200mm 2.8 is large and very heavy, keep that in mind if you think you're going to go hiking with it. I had the 2.8 for a few years and sold it because it rarely left the house. You might also consider a 1.4x converter as it doesn't degrade the image as much, if at all. I had both converters, and shots with the 2.8 and 2x were unusable. But my 2x may simply have been a lemon.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Among my L-series lenses for the EOS 1N (and several long-gone, lesser-quality EOS bodies before and adjunct to it) is the 70-200 f4L. This slender, light and delightfully crisp and contrasty lens is a gem to use — much lighter than the f2.8 versions and proving no reason to angle for Canon's much-hyped new incarnations of this and the f4 lens with IS. There are plenty on the used market, but try and find one that has the OEM hood; buying one with Canon's name stamped on it is a financial penalty many people are keen to avoid!
When fitted to the EOS 1N with PDBE1, it is a fairly weighty set-up (heavier still with the f2.8 version) and will benefit from higher-speed Tv or tripod use. IS has always been a drain on batteries, very especially the simple and inadequate 2CR5 battery when no PDBE1 is fitted.

The EOS 1N (and variants) plus the EOS 1V both have optimised metering and focus speed algorithms for the L-series lenses, so any of the "white knights" can be fitted and used with confidence that camera and lens are working to provide the best performance possible. The algorithms were discussed in technical detail in an edition of Canon's exquisitely printed Lens Work (Vol. II??)

It will be essential to invest in a tripod collar if you are keen on monopods. When I bought my lens in 1998 the tripod collar was a steep $240 extra (!).

 

[Cholentpot]

I use two lenses these days.

For everyday everything with my digital body I use 24-105 f/4L it covers everything! If they made a 2.8 version it would shatter the market, it would be the only lens most would ever buy.

I use a 35-135 USM II with my EOS A2. It does a very fine job in a small package. And it's darn tootin' cheap.

 

[RattyMouse]

I have the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L II lens for my 1V. The autofocus is crazy accurate and the lens produces very sharp images. So sharp I'm thinking about getting a 1.4 extender for it, taking the long end up to 560mm. Apparently it will still autofocus past f/5.6.

 

[film_man]

There's always the first gen 70-200/2.8 IS if you want f/2.8. Probably don't lose much on a film camera vs the II.

 

[benjiboy]

I would think that as a walk around zoom for the purposes you describe the Canon EOS 24-105 L f 4 I.S. U.S.M.II would fit the bill. without being a boat anchor to carry around.

 

[halfaman]

I have a 70-200 f4 IS. Really outstanding in every aspect, and it is much lighter and compact than f2.8 version. Stabilization works wobderfully and putting a Canon 1.4x III converter doesn't affect at all the image quality or AF perfomance.

 

[NJH]

Thanks guys, pretty consistent picture here of fans for the 70-200 F4 lenses. I have to admit one of these has been top of my list, especially for the mobility its lightweight gives, its about the same weight as a typical medium format prime and I have carried a few of those at a time. I get back ache and fed up though if my ruck sack is over about 7 or 8 Kg. 5Kg or so kit I have walked with all day long no problems. Its annoying the F4s don't come with tripod collars though. Are the Chinese no name Ebay ones any good?

Gary its interesting you prefer the non-IS version. I found one last night at a trader I trust for a really good price, about half what the IS version goes for here (and it has the hood). I had been thinking along these lines as the monopod gives about the same amount of gain as practical IS I feel. I don't believe the 4 stops claims are practical, given you bump into subject movement issues after 1 to 2 stops at these focal lengths (even for stuff that looks reasonably static there is still the wind). Anyways that is how I felt about IS from my digi shooting days. Biggest thing with monopods is they take all the weight of your hands and wrists which is such a huge benefit I find.

I also have a stack of 67mm filters. I guess I am sold!

Thanks as well everyone for the tips on the 1.4x.

Cheers
Neil

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Are the Chinese no name Ebay ones any good?

As tempting, even for me, as the Chinese knock-offs are, I would not put this lens in hazard's way with something that has not been through quality control -- a major failing for so very, very much coming out of China. I have no idea how much the collar is worth today (probably above and beyond $240 but online OEM should be competitive), but it is a one-off purchase (how could you lose a tripod collar??) and beautifully made right down to the smallest detail (the barrel ring's inner surface is flock-lined so will not scratch the lens during rotation of the lens as opposed to the grey-ish no-name Chinese versions).

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I also have a stack of 67mm filters. I guess I am sold!

Yes. You're sold on that point. My Pentax 67 MF system has a few lenses that share 67mm filters with the EOS system! THAT is real convenience -- mind you, only if you remember to pack the filters you will likely need on the day with the system you will be using -- I cannot carry both systems donkey-style!!

 

[Joel_L]

Sounds like the OP found something but incase it helps someone else,

I had the original 70-200 2.8, loved it. As I got older and sometimes have trouble holding things still, I decided I wanted something with IS. I gave the original to my daughter and after a lot of research, I bought the new G2 Tamron 70-200 2.8. It is actually quite capable and the Canon has nothing on it. Problem I found later was it did not work on my EOS-3 ( I bought it with my 5D MK IV primarily in mind ). Now with the Canon 70-200 2.8 III announced, I will be watching for deals on the II. Not because the Tamron is bad, but I would like it to work on both bodies.

Also, for me, the 2.8 has been an advantage that I would not want to give up.

 

[AndroclesC]

People may complain about the "dust-pump" 100-400 version 1, but I have had a lot of success with that lens and have never had a problem with dust interfering with image quality. Don't rule it out! The 70-200/4 is definitely a nice lens and it's lightweight to boot. My favorite lens on my 1v was the 24-105/4 IS. It was a great walk-around lens. I also used a 28-135 on mine (I had a very sharp copy of this lens!) at Yosemite years ago and got some absolutely wonderful shots, because I felt that the 24-70/2.8 that I also took with me didn't have enough range. The quality control on that lens is very inconsistent though, so you can't always be sure that you're going to get a good copy. If you do get a good copy, it's a surprisingly decent and useful lens. If I were to recommend a kit for the 1v, I would recommend the 24-105/4 and either version of the 100-400, as well as the 70-200/4. I sold my 1vHS about 5 years ago, but I feel that I may have to buy another one. Soon!

Andy

 

[NJH]

Its a wonderful camera, funny how much nicer and slicker it is than my 60D. All those intervening years didn't trickle down to consumer Canons it seems.

I should add that I very rarely use 35mm now for non-rushed normal to wide angle. SWC in particular I fell in love with but going the other way I don't know if its just me, but blad MF and telephoto or macro is just so much effort and cost to not get very far. I got an EOS Sigma 105mm macro really cheap, super sharp, decent IS and goes down to 1:1. It makes hand held closeups a practical reality. Its a cludge for sure to mix and match systems but 35mm just has much more going for it once one moves progressively further away from normal focal lengths and less pressed shooting.

 

[multivoiced]

Do these telephoto lenses vary noticeably in color or contrast?

People may complain about the "dust-pump" 100-400 version 1, but I have had a lot of success with that lens and have never had a problem with dust interfering with image quality.

Where does the dust seem to end up in that lens?

 

[Joel_L]

I have an EF 28-135 IS, for a non L lens, works remarkably well

an EF 20-35

I also have several EF L zoom lenses,

24-105 - not my favorite, always seems soft.

24-70 2.8 II - this lens is really nice

70-200 2.8 III IS - my go to lens

100-400 II IS - also a real nice lens, I have no problems with dust. also works well wit 1.4x and 2x teleconverters ( also the 70 - 200 )

I use these on my EOS-3, EOS-1V, and EOS 5D IV

make your choices