EF 70-200 F4 L IS or 70-200 F2.8 L

[Haydn1971]

but it´s not parfocal (same as the 70-300mm L).
thats not so good for spotting.

Course it is ;-) it's called autofocus !

Seriously though, I'm not familiar with lenses that are parfocal, so what I haven't had I never miss... Whilst it's easy to dismiss a lens because of a single feature, many of us don't have the disposable income to invest in lenses that cost as much as the 70-200mm f2.8 IS, let alone the longer fixed primes, regardless of how much we would like to. It's easy to take a X is best approach, but the reality is that practically all purchasing decisions in life are a financial compromise. Personally, I don't use my 70-300mm that much, so don't feel a strong urge to get a better lens in that range, I'm more of a wide and/or low light photographer, so I'm starting to expand my collection with that in mind, the 70-300mm was bought at the time I got my 450D about three years ago, the 15-85mm last autumn, the 50mm f1.4 a few weeks back, I'm now pondering wide low f, the 16-35mm would be nice, but I suspect the 28mm f1.8 might be all I can justify, maybe a 17-55mm at a stretch... Watch this space, but gawd do I want Canon to do some wide fast EF-S primes !

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

a) For a bizarre reason, Canon chose to swap around the focus ring and the zoom ring, so you sometimes chose the wrong one. It's not a biggie, but worth knowing

Canon has released patents now for a rear focus design with multiplee elements moving in a complex pattern. apparently they discovered this as a way to improve the IQ, and we will see more of this.

Some lenses are front focus and some rear, its been that way for many years.

 

[WarStreet]

Thanks for all the answers.
At this moment i have a EFS 55-250 IS and the zoom range works fine for aircraft taxing and on take off roll, this is in my nearby airport OPO. The big disadvantage for me of the EF 70-200 f2.8 is the weight, a couple of hours with that on my arms and at the moment i have a 500d so a big lenses with a small body don't know.... The IS in the lenses is useful for me to trie some new shots and because i use my camera 70% for plane-spotting and the other 30% for travel or general photos.
I'm also a big fan of the EF 100-400 L IS but its an old lenses that someday would have a replacement? I also been searching stuff about the EF 70-300 L IS and it seems to be good material, at this moment my budget its around €1100 so i'm seriously thinking about buying the EF 70-200 F4 L IS and later with more € available and a new body i would like to have a lenses like the EF 100-400 L IS and the EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II

Best regards

In our single airport in the country, there is a particular spot for plane-spotters, and I do go there sometimes just to watch them, and the planes while eating something. Most of them use any type of lenses, and even smaller cameras. 70-200, 100-400 and 70-300, 55-250 are the most common, and pretty much every lens seems to deliver for them. They told me that usually their objective is to collect the different planes including different serial no's, and that sometimes they only shoot the serial numbers or stickers.

I have seen your photos and it seems that you are doing well with your setup. Do you have a particular shortcoming with the 55-250 for your needs ? I am asking as this can help you further, to decide what's best way forward.

 

[AECM]

In our single airport in the country, there is a particular spot for plane-spotters, and I do go there sometimes just to watch them, and the planes while eating something. Most of them use any type of lenses, and even smaller cameras. 70-200, 100-400 and 70-300, 55-250 are the most common, and pretty much every lens seems to deliver for them. They told me that usually their objective is to collect the different planes including different serial no's, and that sometimes they only shoot the serial numbers or stickers.

I have seen your photos and it seems that you are doing well with your setup. Do you have a particular shortcoming with the 55-250 for your needs ? I am asking as this can help you further, to decide what's best way forward.

Hi,
Well I'm a plane spotter that likes to do good photos off an aircraft, i don't simple collect registrations i prefer to have good photos with quality. About my actual lenses I'm very happy with it but now i would like more image quality, more sharpness and better colors, i also could use about 20% of times more focal length to get different shots... I think that buying an L lenses, and with proper care, its a lenses for a lifetime and i can get better shots.

 

[Gothmoth]

They told me that usually their objective is to collect the different planes including different serial no's, and that sometimes they only shoot the serial numbers or stickers.

humans are strange aren´t they? ;D

 

[Edwin Herdman]

I like to go out by a back gate of a regional airport and take photos now and then (I haven't had a chance to do it with the 120-300mm f/2.8 and 2X III extender setup yet), in addition to chasing around aircraft that overfly the yard. A good picture is my goal.

I actually had to think a bit about which is better - zoom ring or focus ring in front - and with a heavy lens like the 120-300mm f/2.8 you really want both to be in front. Probably, with a better AF system and/or uncluttered scenes (i.e. not shooting into tangles of branches) you probably want the zoom ring in front because you can recompose the scene and let AF do the rest. Trying to track a subject and recompose while balancing the lens halfway back and zooming seems like it would be too straining. Grabbing the focus ring isn't easy, either, and you still have to balance it, but at least it can be done. For me, using that particular lens, the problem is that my usual AF mode means that the camera keeps trying to track despite my grabbing the focus ring, so I usually have to flip the AF/M switch regardless of what I do. Putting the focus ring out front wouldn't make that more convenient.

 

[WarStreet]

Hi,
Well I'm a plane spotter that likes to do good photos off an aircraft, i don't simple collect registrations i prefer to have good photos with quality. About my actual lenses I'm very happy with it but now i would like more image quality, more sharpness and better colors, i also could use about 20% of times more focal length to get different shots... I think that buying an L lenses, and with proper care, its a lenses for a lifetime and i can get better shots.

If more sharpness is what you want, then the lenses you are considering are all good. The 70-200 4.0 IS is considered the second sharpest from the five 70-200's. You are right, buying an L lens is valuable. I prefer to buy Canon lenses due to the good investment. You certainly not throwing money by buying any of these lenses.

 

[afira]

Seriously though, I'm not familiar with lenses that are parfocal, so what I haven't had I never miss... Whilst it's easy to dismiss a lens because of a single feature, many of us don't have the disposable income to invest in lenses that cost as much as the 70-200mm f2.8 IS, let alone the longer fixed primes, regardless of how much we would like to. It's easy to take a X is best approach, but the reality is that practically all purchasing decisions in life are a financial compromise. Personally, I don't use my 70-300mm that much, so don't feel a strong urge to get a better lens in that range, I'm more of a wide and/or low light photographer, so I'm starting to expand my collection with that in mind, the 70-300mm was bought at the time I got my 450D about three years ago, the 15-85mm last autumn, the 50mm f1.4 a few weeks back, I'm now pondering wide low f, the 16-35mm would be nice, but I suspect the 28mm f1.8 might be all I can justify, maybe a 17-55mm at a stretch... Watch this space, but gawd do I want Canon to do some wide fast EF-S primes !

Not considering the 10-22mm EF-S f/3.5-4.5 at half the price of the more expensive 16-35mm L EF f/2.8? Unless you only have a FF, or shoot exclusively wide and low light at the same time of course... I prefer the 10-22 for sharper corners and a decent dof - not as good as I would like, but good enough for the price.

 

[wellfedCanuck]

this is in my nearby airport OPO.

Oporto, Franciso Cameiro...
Are any of these yours?
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?cx=partner-pub-8297169501225184%3Aa05n2n-tzky&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=opo&sa=Submit&search_active=1&search=&sheadline=&search_field=datedesc&submit=&siteurl=www.airliners.net%2F

This are mine

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Andr%C3%A9%20Marques&distinct_entry=true

Nice. Although I take a lot of airplane photos, I'm sometimes in them as well.

 

[dstppy]

Whilst everyone jumps in with the biggest most costly options, a lower cost option is the 70-300mm non L, which although isn't great in low light, works fine for me in terms of getting the occasional long shots - it has IS which helps, but for less than the price of the 70-200mm f4 and half the 70-200mm f4 IS, it's a good bargain and the picture quality is pretty good... Plus you get the extra reach to 300mm, I've paired mine up with a 15-85mm which is on my camera most of the time.

Wait, are you talking about the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?

I've been sorely disappointed time after time by this lens; grainy and low-res compared to pretty much every other lens in my collection

We went up to Alex Bay last weekend and I have to say that the 70-300 shots were so grainy even on a 13" notebook that recomposing the shot and using the 24-105L seemed much more professional . . .

I'm definitely in the market for a higher quality telephoto.

 

[Haydn1971]

Not considering the 10-22mm EF-S f/3.5-4.5 at half the price of the more expensive 16-35mm L EF f/2.8? Unless you only have a FF, or shoot exclusively wide and low light at the same time of course... I prefer the 10-22 for sharper corners and a decent dof - not as good as I would like, but good enough for the price.

I find it rare to need more than 15mm of my 15-85mm, but much more frequently need low light functionality, wider than 50mm on my crop - the f in this case is more important than the mm - incidentally, I was looking at prices for the 17-55mm last night and numerous places had limited or no availability - is this normal or a sign of replacement ?

 

[recon photography]

Not considering the 10-22mm EF-S f/3.5-4.5 at half the price of the more expensive 16-35mm L EF f/2.8? Unless you only have a FF, or shoot exclusively wide and low light at the same time of course... I prefer the 10-22 for sharper corners and a decent dof - not as good as I would like, but good enough for the price.

I find it rare to need more than 15mm of my 15-85mm, but much more frequently need low light functionality, wider than 50mm on my crop - the f in this case is more important than the mm - incidentally, I was looking at prices for the 17-55mm last night and numerous places had limited or no availability - is this normal or a sign of replacement ?

possibly, just pick up a non vc tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for 300 odd

it should be

 

[AECM]

Nice. Although I take a lot of airplane photos, I'm sometimes in them as well.

Nice! I see you are an Airbus pilot, A320 family?

 

[wellfedCanuck]

Nice. Although I take a lot of airplane photos, I'm sometimes in them as well.

Nice! I see you are an Airbus pilot, A320 family?

Yes, captain A319/320/321 for the past 10 years, AC, based CYYZ. The snapshot was takent with a crappy little pocket-camera but that's the Grand Canyon in the background. (That part of the world fascinates me- Shiprock, Monument Valley, et al.)

 

[AECM]

Yes, captain A319/320/321 for the past 10 years, AC, based CYYZ. The snapshot was takent with a crappy little pocket-camera but that's the Grand Canyon in the background. (That part of the world fascinates me- Shiprock, Monument Valley, et al.)

You sure work in the best office in the world

 

[AECM]

but it´s not parfocal (same as the 70-300mm L).
thats not so good for spotting.

What does parfocal means?

thought the 100-400 is not parfocal too.
at least not all copys... i had a few who are parfocal but more are not.

So there are different EF 100-400L? They weren't supposed to be all exactly the same?

 

[afira]

What does parfocal means?

So there are different EF 100-400L? They weren't supposed to be all exactly the same?

Parfocal - objects in focus at one magnification, aka 100mm, will be in focus or mostly in focus at a higher magnification, aka 200mm. This is beneficial for people that work with very mobile objects and need to be able to handle zooming in and out and maintaining focus without much shifting between shots. The larger the range of the focal length - typically the harder it is to control focus from one end to the next. This isn't always the case though.

Some lenses have better QC, IQ and generally are just better. It happens as a fault of working with glass and multiple layers of it along with all the imperfections and differences. E.g. the Hubble telescope - a massive piece of glass/mirror that was out by 2.2 microns. Manufacturing for all lens makers is never 100% perfect every time. As far as I am aware, the 100-400mm didn't have multiple releases - but given that the lens was developed in 1998, I sure minor differences would be present between the years.

 

[Loswr]

The 100-400mm is not a parfocal design, so really none of them should be parfocal. But, it's a slow lens, and what often happens is that the deep DoF resulting from the narrow aperture masks focus errors, so depending on subject distance you might not notice the change in focal plane as you zoom.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

We went up to Alex Bay last weekend and I have to say that the 70-300 shots were so grainy even on a 13" notebook that recomposing the shot and using the 24-105L seemed much more professional . . .

"Grainy" shots are generally not the lens' doing, but the camera's when you try to push the ISO past what it should be.

If you mean fuzzy, the cause could be the same.

Higher sensitivity, tripods, IS lenses or - best of all - a faster lens - are all potential solutions.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I would like to add that I own the EF 70-300 IS lens you say gives you grainy pictures and I will second Edwin's thoughts. I have a ton of beautiful pictures from that lens on a 30D and 40D camera, not to mention a 5D. It's not the fault of the lens unless you have some kind of way off wacky copy. Far as I am concerned, the EF 70-300 IS lens is a hell of a value for what it can produce.