Thread: Big zooms or big tele

SWMBO is still on about these lenses,would a canon EF 70-200 2.8 II IS USM lens by OK with a 2X converter.

I presume you would lose an f stop or two?

I am guessing it would not be as sharp as a telephoto,say 300mm,hence the tele price?

The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is equal to the Nikon in their respective ranges. I can't say how the Canon acts with a 2x TC or if it can take one. The Nikon is still an excellent lens with the TC attached.

A 2x TC drops the f/2.8 by two stops.

As for sharp, nothing in a zoom beats a good prime.

Canon user here, but that doesn't matter much for the sake of this discussion.

I spoiled myself and bought a second hand Canon 300mm F2.8 IS (first generation) 3 months back, knowing I had some work for it coming up. I'd used a Canon 600mm F4.0 IS and was absolutely floored by what it could do. No compromises image quality and an incredibly ability to isolate subjects in space. I decided I wanted a dedicated tele lens but had to be reasonable. The 300 cost more than the last 2 motorcycles we have bought so that puts the cost in perspective. However, the IQ is up there with the best Canon (or anyone) ever produced and I'm so glad I bought it. I use it mostly for bike racing and people. It's amazing for both. I especially like it for shots of people because it produces a really natural view from a distance, but still offers something intimate and involved.

Some examples from work at the Australasian Safari for the team that won the event.









This one froze a bike at about 100kph. The full size image shows the stitching in the rider's clothing.



















Race winner Jacob Smith.



In short, this is a lens that just makes me smile just about every time I use it. I have a Sigma 100-300 F4.0 and while it "does" 300mm, in comparison it just doesn't "do it". These sorts of lenses ARE investments. They distinguish themselves from the do-all zooms when really pushed in difficult conditions. AF speed and accuracy is critical with what I do, especially when shooting rallying where I'll only see each competitor once or twice. I bought it as an experiment, but if pressed I'd really struggle to sell it. The guy I bought it from only sold it to finance a 400mm after going full frame with a 5DMkIII. The IQ with that body and the 300mm was amazing, but coming from a 1DMk4 he found it lost the tele feel so needed to go longer.

It's big, but not unmanageable. However, if you decide you're going to shoot long with such a thing, you're pretty much committed to that lens and body for the session/day due to its handling requirements. I've shot with a Nikon user armed with a 200mm F2.0 and it's a toss up in terms of bulk - but the images he makes with that lens are gobsmackingly special. I believe he used to have a 300, still has a 400, 500 and 600. He found the 300 no less cumbersome than the 400 but it didn't have the reach so it was sold.

I haven't helped have I...

Macman they are spectacular photos

Due to the cost and the subtle differences in the way the Nikon 300mm F2.8 and 200 400mm F4 zoom do their thing I will have to use both then way up the pros and cons of each as they are very expensive I really dont want to be dissapointed that I got the 'wrong' one.

I have narrowed it down to these two lenses as the bigger ones are beyond my ability to justify the cost and secondly these are still able to be hand held which means there is a reasonable ability to carry them for a bit before needing a truck to carry it.