New Canon Lens

[PhilipHowe]

I'm about to purchase a new lens and would like a range of opinions from anyone who has the same lens.

I have a Canon 28-200 (f3.5/5.6) USM, however, want to get something that is a bit sharper and for use indoors as well as out and generally an 'everything you need a zoom lens for'. My current is good for outdoor, but not great indoor. It is also a good general purpose lens as it had a large zoom range, but on a full frame camera, is not exactly telephoto.

I'm doing a wedding at the end of August, so will be using the new lens for candids, and indoors at the ceremony, but also want a lens I can use for sports, so need a good zoom. I'll be using it on my Canon 5D (Full Frame) and also on my 350D when needs must.

I have been looking at four lenses but also just seen a fifth.

The lenses are here and the warehouse express prices with them:
(Note, I am not endorsing WarehouseExpress, merely picked them as an example as they stock all the lenses and are a guide price, I'll shop around when the time comes).

Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM Lens (£529)
Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM Lens (£969)
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L USM Lens (£1015)
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II USM Lens (£2154)
Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens (£1268)

My general questions are:

I see the reason for IS on an f4 lens, however, is IS on an f2.8 lens actually necessary? I have kind of disregarded the f2.8 IS based on price.
My thoughts are that IS on an f4 and non IS on an f2.8, kind of make these two lenses similar and the price would also suggest this to be true.

Equally, the 100-400 has the largest zoom, but also includes IS, can I think of the long end of 5.6 as being comparable to an f4 non IS.
I've also looked at extenders (maybe to purchase later) to increase the range by 1.4x or 2.0x, obviously, I understand that the light degrades using an extender.

Before I buy, I'll go and try them as best I can, go home and look at the results, then purchase, but wondered what your opinion is. Can you tell me which, if any you own as well, thank you?

[John]

I think you have some contradictory requirements there.

For indoor low light use the humble 50mm f1.4 lens takes some beating. Or the f1.8 if the budget won't allow the f1.4 version.

For sports something up to 300mm for the smaller format DSLR (35mm equivalent of 480mm is very respectable) and the same would do nicely on the full frame camera.

IS is useful for all purposes, not only telephoto shots, but don't forget it will do nothing to reduce subject movement.

[Theo Dibbits]

Philip

To help you getting confused even further I use the Sigma 70 - 200 f2.8 non IS (about £ 600)
It is excellent on my 40D for sports pictures where frankly the IS is of limited use because of subject movement.
I have also used the EF 70 - 200 f4 L non IS which is a lot lighter then the Sigma and nice and sharp.

However weddings and churches are a totally different subject. I have used my 24 - 105 f4 IS for church pictures and can happily shoot down to 1/15 sec. hand held. Provided the subject is standing still. If you can afford the 2 grand for the 70 - 200 l f2.8 IS that is the way to go as you can always switch it off. But for that money you could have the 24 - 105 L IS and the 70 - 200 L f 2.8.

If you are at the church tomorrow you can have a go at them.

Theo

[sunsworth]

For indoor low light use the humble 50mm f1.4 lens takes some beating. Or the f1.8 if the budget won't allow the f1.4 version.

The f1.8 is amazing value for money - even it if it feels like a piece of plastic tat that could fall apart at any moment. I'd recommend it to every Canon user.

[PhilipHowe]

Thanks for all the responses via email and here.

I have a Tamron 90mm f2.8 that is good indoors low light, but the 50mm would be too wide on the 5D, as that's why I bought the 90mm in the first place. I tried a lot of older 50mm lenses in RealCamera ring adaptors and liked them a lot (If I remember correctly, at f1.4, in the shop I could get a shutter speed of 1/8000th sec).

I also have a lensbaby, which is roughly 50mm as well (although it is tilt and shift).

Theo, I didn't want to complicate things by mentioning the 24-105L, as, depending on where my Mrs finally decides we are going on our summer holiday, will decide on whether I get the 24-105L as well (it's always on the shopping list). If I get the 70-200mm L (non IS), then this should leave me some room. Also, thank you very much for the offer of a try of your lenses, but unfortunately, I can't make it tomorrow. That's very kind of you.

So, at the moment, the 70-200 f2.8 L non IS is favourite and I may go for a 2x extender as well (I know it robs some light).

[Theo Dibbits]

Forgot to tell you that I have the 2x converter
If I had to spend my money again I would go for the 1.4
The fall off in picture quality is just a little too much

Theo

[PhilipHowe]

Theo, again, thanks for the great advice.

[PhilipHowe]

Thanks to all who answered this post and to all who emailed me.

I scoured the second hand shops of Manchester yesterday and managed to get the Canon 24-105L and the Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS.
I was going to trade my old lenses in, however, I'll keep them with my 350D and use them for holiday etc.
I wasn't prepared for how heavy the 70-200 is, so had to get a monopod.

I'm now a happy bunny.

Thanks.

[PhilipHowe]

Here is a quick pic I took at the motocross yesterday with the 70-200.
I put it in picasa, cropped and a bit of fill light, as I deliberately under exposed it as I didnt have a polariser filter.

MX-2010-06-20.jpg (183.72 KiB) Viewed 6664 times