C100: Telephoto lens options?

Doug_EX

Doug_EX

Well-known member
Hi,

I will receive this week my C100 (with 24-105) and a tokina 11-16. I am looking for a good telephoto lens.
I'm pretty to the Canon world, but after searching quite a bit on the web, I found these options:
-28-300l is
-70-200l f4 is with 2x converter
-100-400l is
-70-300l is

what is the best option?
 
Very much depends on your intended use.

70-200 f2.8 IS is a very popular option, the version II is one of Canon's sharpest lenses.
70-200 f4 IS is a nice lens and a lot lighter than the f2.8 but with the 2 x converter you will lose two stops of light, i.e. f4 becomes f8.
100-400 IS is nice for wildlife, etc.
28-300 is an old, heavy beast of a lens.
 
What about the 70-300l ?
For what I read in forums, it's sharper than the 70-200. Even the 2.8.
is it true?
 
I'll add a vote for the 70-200 f4 IS on the C100. When hand-holding, its lightness is not to be underestimated, plus it has very good IS. Last week, I had to hand-hold a 200mm shot on a stationary object for 15 seconds. I don't think I could have done that (with all the shots that followed, all handheld) with the 2.8. Plus I had to 'pocket' two lenses and use the third. If you're into run and gun on the C100, the 70-200 f4 is great. FWIW, I don't use the 2x converter.

And another 'fwiw' - IS is very, very necessary. Even on a tripod. If you have to adjust focus, just touching a lens at this length will cause a bit of wobble that the IS soaks up.
 
I'll second Matts vote for the 70-200 F4. And here is why. The Canon C100 can eat light with it's good ISO performance. And the F4 versions are very very sharp while being more compact and lighter than the f2.8 versions. Now the 70-200 2.8vII is one of the finest lenses Canon has ever made but the cost difference is severe from the F4's.

Much of the reason outside of the ability to shoot "low light" with a 2.8 in stills photography was the reason to be able to have the camera auto focus better than an F4 by letting more light hit your mirror so the camera's AF system could do it's job. Cameras have changed since those days and situations with better AF systems.

I have the 70-200 2.8v1, 70-200 f4IS and was lucky enough to have picked up the 70-200 f4 non IS when the photo dept at my wife's office had an auction off of all their gear. I picked up the 70-200 F4 non IS for $175 and its a great lens. I don't really use my 2.8 versions on the C100 because it weight and size. Especially for anything run and gun or one man band. I will more often than not use the F4 non IS because I will have that lens on tripod. ANd on a tripod I never use IS because the IS will float if the camera is not moving or will lag if you start a pan. In fact, I won't use IS unless the shot is handheld and to be predominately a static shot or with very little movement. These IS lenses are very different IS systems than what you would find in a video camera and are tuned for stills shooting. But even so, if on sticks or monopod, you should turn off your IS to avoid pan drag. You will eventually become better at being "soft" with a camera as well. Have you ever seen a Cine zoom with IS?

I bought a 70D kit and it came with the 18-135 STM. I've got to say, it's really a pretty good lens. It's not my 70-200. But it's not all that far behind optically as well.
 
I really need more reach than 200mm. I'm use to a HPX250 that has a 22x zoom that goes from 28mm to 616mm (35mm equivalent). And sometimes I even feel that would need more. That being said, would a 70-200 f4 IS with a 2x converter would be better than a 100-400? I must say that I'm leaning towards the 100-400mm because I would'nt need the 2x converter.
 
I have the 100-400 and like it a lot. I've not compared directly but suspect the 100-400 would out perform the 70-200 + 2x converter. You will be at a minimum of f8 with that combo, coming from a stills background this would not be an option because auto focus would not work. I have read some favourable reviews of the 70-200 f2.8 + 2x converter combo.

Depending on what you are shooting you may find keeping focus at 400mm (600mm FF equivalent) challenging on the C100 compared to the HPX250.
 
rent one out, try it, it's cheap as hell to give it an actual go with a potential lens to see if it suits your needs before buying.

i don't use tele that much, and when i do it's in a doc/eng situation where switching lenses isn't an option and i'm stuck with a superzoom anyways, but for otherwise, i picked up a used 70-300 IS NON-L for very cheap and i've been very pleased with it, so i can only imagine how great the L version would be. add to that i picked up a kenko 1.4x which as far as i can tell without chart scrutiny, doesn't degrade the image much at all!
 
Doug_EX said:
I really need more reach than 200mm. I'm use to a HPX250 that has a 22x zoom that goes from 28mm to 616mm (35mm equivalent). And sometimes I even feel that would need more. That being said, would a 70-200 f4 IS with a 2x converter would be better than a 100-400? I must say that I'm leaning towards the 100-400mm because I would'nt need the 2x converter.
Click to expand...

Being a recent convert to the c100 I went with the EF 70-200 f/4L IS lens. As has previously been stated it does get down to what you need the lens for. For me it was, in the first instance for filming seminars and conferences where I believe 400 mm is required at least. To that end I bought a 2x extender. Yes you are filming at f8, but large conferences are usually very well lit and with the excellent low light performance of the c100 I have found this set-up works fine. For smaller seminars which often are not lit well I'm usually using a range of 70 to 140mm at f4 3200 ISO, so again it works for me. This lens also works well for other kinds of event-work.

Cost wise the EF 100-400mm will be cheaper (no $500 extender) but doesn't quite cover some of my needs. I would second the suggestion of hiring the lenses and trying it out for yourself.
[h=2][/h]
 
Doug,
I shoot a lot of wildlife apart from other stuff and now into features.

Lens depreciate much less than cameras. So it is always better to invest in quality lenses. If you need long focal length, then remember that converters degrade the quality unless you are starting with a very good lens.

I find that 2xII TC converters only work well with my Canon 400 f2.8 L IS lens and with the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens. With other lenses there is a varying degree of drop in quality.

Since you are already used to HPX, I feel that it would be better for you to go for the 100-400. That is cheaper than the 70-200 IS II. I absolutely love the 70-200 IS II lens for its quality with 2xII TC and image stabilisation (http://www.indiawilds.com/diary/canon-70-200-f2-8-l-is-ii-usm-review/ ). In situations where I need beyond 400mm and I can't use the 400 f2.8, I find the 100-400 with a 1.4x TC good with a monopod and even a beanbag.

The 100-400 is also good for situations when you want to quickly shift between a long shot and a close up.
 
Doug

I love my 28-300mm is. For some of the event shoots I do, I would not be able to do it with any other lens. My client will ask my for a wide shot of the room and then a tight shot say of a speaker at a podium and this is the only lens that I know that can do both. Yes it is heavy, but all my event stuff is on tripod, so it's not an issue. Even for some of my run and gun doc stuff on a monopod it works fairly well. Don't forget when you you use a lens with the C100 you have a crop factor of 1.5. A 100mm is now a 150mm which can be very limiting.
 
Doug_EX said:
Still not 100% sure...but leaning more and more towards the 100-400.
Click to expand...

Doug_EX

Basically you have to let people know what you need the telephoto lens for before anybody can make educated suggestions. I'm happy with the 70-200 f4 because it meets MY needs. The 2x extender does also work for SOME OF MY jobs. It depends on the application. I'm only buying into this thread as I faced a similar dilemma and having read many posts from people doing much the same type of work I hired a lens and extender for a real job and tested it. For me, filming conferences and events I have worked out I need a range of 70 - 140 and 300 to 400mm and I felt the 70-200 f4 with extenders best met that criteria. For you and others it may be different as you may have different needs.
 
neilmac said:
Doug_EX

Basically you have to let people know what you need the telephoto lens for before anybody can make educated suggestions. I'm happy with the 70-200 f4 because it meets MY needs. The 2x extender does also work for SOME OF MY jobs. It depends on the application. I'm only buying into this thread as I faced a similar dilemma and having read many posts from people doing much the same type of work I hired a lens and extender for a real job and tested it. For me, filming conferences and events I have worked out I need a range of 70 - 140 and 300 to 400mm and I felt the 70-200 f4 with extenders best met that criteria. For you and others it may be different as you may have different needs.
Click to expand...

You're right!

I will be using it for nature, wildlife (seals, whales, birds, etc.)
 
Doug_EX said:
You're right!

I will be using it for nature, wildlife (seals, whales, birds, etc.)
Click to expand...
Then 100-400 with 1.4 x TC.

And if you have budget then you can go for the 200-400 f4 L IS USM with inbuilt 1.4x TC. So you can get 560mm at the flick of a button and then if you need further then you can add an external TC as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top