Long Zooms with IS

ROCKMORE

ROCKMORE

Veteran
I'm looking to upgrade my Canon 55-250mm f4/5.6 IS.
The only place to go looks like the Canon 100-400 f4.5/5.6L to see a significant difference in focal length and IQ.
The Sigma 120-400mm f4,5/5.6 is a lower cost alternative, but has mixed reviews.
Anybody got any hands on experience with these lenses?
 
Last edited:
I've seen some of the 70-200 L IS f2.8's going for as low as $1200 in our local classifieds. I actually tested one out and it would be very difficult to justify the IS II version at roughly twice that price new. I've dug around quite a bit sorting out what I want in that range and it seems Canon has quite the advantage in image quality with those two lenses over anything on the market at any price. If you need that focal length range, I'd bite the bullet and find a way to go there :)

On a T3i with the 3x zoom function you get an equivalent focal length of 960mm. This is where the ultra high quality glass becomes incredibly appearant. For what I'm doing that focal length is nearly perfect and there's no other way to get the quality and focal length without spending 10's of thousands of dollars.

Hoping to have a couple other toys sold shorly here so I can have the cash ready when another clean used on shows up.

Cheers,
Pete
 
Last edited:
70-200 IS then get a 2x extender if you need it longer. You'll lose a stop but you're doing that anyway if you go for a 4.5-5.6. Its a more flexible option because you end up with a better shorter length lens.
 
I've got the Tamron 70-200 and I love it. I use it far more often than I ever did when I borrowed a friends Canon 100-400, which is more of a specialty super-telephoto zoom lens. The 70-200 lives on my 550D and I use it for everything from headshots/interviews to action sports. With the 100-400 I only used it when I wanted the 400mm. Of course, the Tamron does not have IS - but the Sigma & Canon versions do. Any any of these options can be coupled with a 2x convertor, essentially giving you a 70-400 f/2.8-5.6 IS.

In the long run I think you'll be better off going with one of the 70-200's - This range would be more useful than a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 in everyday use, and you could couple it with either a 1.4x or 2x extender for those times you need the longer reach.
 
Last edited:
deltoidjohn said:
I've got the Tamron 70-200 and I love it. I use it far more often than I ever did when I borrowed a friends Canon 100-400, which is more of a specialty super-telephoto zoom lens. The 70-200 lives on my 550D and I use it for everything from headshots/interviews to action sports. With the 100-400 I only used it when I wanted the 400mm. Of course, the Tamron does not have IS - but the Sigma & Canon versions do. Any any of these options can be coupled with a 2x convertor, essentially giving you a 70-400 f/2.8-5.6 IS.

In the long run I think you'll be better off going with one of the 70-200's - This range would be more useful than a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 in everyday use, and you could couple it with either a 1.4x or 2x extender for those times you need the longer reach.
Click to expand...


Im assuming by the lens upgrade he wants is because of the focal length? If so then he already has this range covered with his 55-250mm lens.
 
vision_filmz said:
Im assuming by the lens upgrade he wants is because of the focal length? If so then he already has this range covered with his 55-250mm lens.
Click to expand...

Yes, but unlike the 55-250, the 70-200's still look great when paired with a 2x teleconverter. The 70-200's (from Sigma, Canon, Tamron, or even Nikon if you want to use adaptors) all have great IQ and build quality. They are a massive step above the consumer tele-zooms, in all aspects. Other benefits include the faster aperture, internal zoom and focus (so you can use a matte box or circular polariser) nice smooth zoom/focus rings, and a tripod ring for better handling and balance on a tripod or rig.

The 70-200 f/2.8's are all sharp enough to be used effectively with a 2x teleconvertor and become a 400mm f/5.6. The 55-250mm becomes a 500mm f/11, and takes a serious hit to sharpness if you try and combine it with a teleconvertor.

The point I was trying to make was that for about the same price as the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, you can get the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS and a 2x teleconverter and have a wider range of apertures and focal lengths available.
 
I'd run tests before deciding on the teleconverter. As well as the light loss you all have mentioned, image quality can decrease and (if doing stills) AF can be slower.
 
J Davis said:
I'd run tests before deciding on the teleconverter. As well as the light loss you all have mentioned, image quality can decrease and (if doing stills) AF can be slower.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I have a few different quality 1.4x and 2x converters from passed and after a lot of use realized they all loose some IQ along with the 1 to 2 stops. There is nothing really wrong with the 55-250 IS except the cheap build and slight loss of sharpness over 200mm.
What I need the lens for is a series of racing and motor sports films I've been developing and 100-400 would be a good range. The 100-400 Canon is sharp throughout the range and it's best end for sharpness and IQ seems to be at 400mm. Stopping down will increase sharpness and I'm usually fighting to keep my exposure down to f11 / f16 without an ND.
I don't think any of the 3rd party long zooms will produce any better results than the 55-250. The canon 100-400 from all the tests I have read and seen is the clear winner.

Here is a clip I shot last Sunday for Meritus Racing using the Tamron 17-50mm non IS and the Canon 55-250mm IS. The 55-250 is OK but could be better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvEpO-3V15w&feature=related
 
Last edited:
Question: why the need for IS if this is for video? You're not hand-holding such a long lens for video are you?

You might also consider the Sigma 50-500 OS or the cheaper 150-500 OS.

For video, my main video lens (mostly wildlife and birds) is the older non-OS Sigma 50-500 on my T3i. For comparison, I also have the Canon EF 400/5.6L & EF 300/4L IS, Sigma 120-300/2.8, 2 50-500's, 170-500 & 400/5.6 APO.
 
Kin Lau said:
Question: why the need for IS if this is for video? You're not hand-holding such a long lens for video are you?

You might also consider the Sigma 50-500 OS or the cheaper 150-500 OS.
Click to expand...

I've noticed even slightly touching my 250mm can cause a vibration without IS and I have it on a relatively sturdy old Miller head. A 400mm would surely be much worse. I'm usually shooting events under pressure running from one location to another so I have to set up quick and start rolling. I also have to handle the lens all the time manual focusing.
I've looked at other 3rd party long zoom lenses, but nothing compares with the canon 100-400 IS for sharpness and although lower cost, other brands are still up there. I only plan to buy this lens once so the Canon will be worth it in the long run.
 
Last edited:
I have the EF300/4L IS and IS is more a problem than a solution. Keep in mind that my 300/4IS does not have the latest IS, but neither does the 100-400IS. When panning or tilting with IS on, it always overshoots/floats.

On my WF717 tripod, manual focus and vibration is not a problem without the 3x telecrop, but with the telecrop on, then IS doesn't do any good either, a beanbag or gel-pack on the lens barrel works better.

I haven't found IS to be any advantage when it comes to wind induced vibrations. Removing the lens hood and weighing down the barrel and a good heavy tripod usually works best.

If you are counting on IS, then make sure the lens in question has the right implementation
 
Kin Lau said:
a beanbag or gel-pack on the lens barrel works better.
Click to expand...

That's good advice and what I have used before IS. I'm actually new to IS lenses and also have had problems with the image catching up with the pan late in the past. The 100-400 range is what I'm in need of. Sharpness and contrast are at the top of the need list too. What's another comparable lens choice?
 
There is also the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS. Not quite as long but it's 2-stops faster at the tele end. It's heavy though, which could be a bit of an inconvenience at live events.
 
ROCKMORE said:
I'm looking to upgrade my Canon 55-250mm f4/5.6 IS.
Click to expand...

If you look for one step up and if you stick with Canon, you have 5 professional-grade options:

1) 70-200mm

There are 4 sub options: with or with IS; f2.8 or f4.0. All these lenses are among the very best EF lenses. For many, they are the most frequently used general-purpose lenses. The non-IS f4.0 version is inexpensive, small, and lightweight.

2) 70-300mm /f4-f5.6 IS

This is a new white L lens from Canon. I know little about it, and have zero motivation to own one.

3) 100-400mm /f4-f5.6 IS

This is a relatively old lens, and is NOT among the very best EF lenses. Many still photographers pick it only because there is no alternative in this focal length range with comparable IQ and comparable build quality. For still photography, it does not work very well even with the 1.4x EF extender. But for video, due to much lower resolutions, it works well even with the 2x extender, which effectively doubles it as a 200-800mm/f8-f11 lens (a sweet yet horrible creature for still photography!).

4) 70-200mm/f2.8 + 2x EF extender => 140-400/f5.6, with or without IS

If you don't need a makeshift 800mm/f11 lens, this is the most flexible way to get the focal length of 400mm. For still photography, it's probably not as good as the EF 100-400mm lens without an extender. But for video, nobody cares.

5) Keep your current lens, and add: EF 400mm/f5.6 (cheap), f4 or f2.8

The 400mm end of 100-400mm is very soft, compared to any of the three 400mm prime lenses.


Which way to go is all up to you. I personally went for option 4 but only with a 1.4x extender as I care about still photography more than reaching the focal length of 400mm.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top