Cheap Telephoto Shootout...which to buy?

[Lord Blackadder]

Other Canon non-L lenses that don't suck:

From what I've heard, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm is built using some of the tech that goes into various L lenses, but because it is an EF-S lens they decided not to sell it as an L. I want one.

Also, I have had good luck with my 50mm f/1.8 in low light.

I think I'll eventually end up getting the 70-200mm f/4 L or the EF 70-300mm IS USM.

 

[Edge100]

Stay away from anything 75-300 from Canon -- utter crap.

I owned the 70-300mm at it was pretty good. But, if you want top quality -- look at Canon's 70-200mm series. All are leaps and bounds above the lenses with a larger spread. There are four flavors:

f/4 non-IS
f/4 IS
f/2.8 non-IS
f/2.8 IS

And, prices go up quickly as you move down this list. But, you get superior results!

I would argue that the f/4 IS is the clear winner of the four in pure IQ. It's tack sharp wide-open, and only gets better from there. The others are about equal in IQ.

There are obvious advantages to f/2.8 AND IS (or both), but in this case, IQ is best with the f/4 IS.

 

[Edge100]

From what I've heard, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm is built using some of the tech that goes into various L lenses, but because it is an EF-S lens they decided not to sell it as an L. I want one.

Also, I have had good luck with my 50mm f/1.8 in low light.

I think I'll eventually end up getting the 70-200mm f/4 L or the EF 70-300mm IS USM.

Yes, the 10-22 should be added to this list.

Every 50/1.8 copy I've used hunts like mad in very low light (think f/1.8, 1/45s, ISO3200...like a single lamp on in windowless-room). The 50/1.4 is much better in this regard (though it's 3x the price).

I highly recommend the 70-200 f/4L. It's a top-notch zoom. The IS version is sharper, and more useful in lower light due to the IS, but the non-IS is excellent as well.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I try to manually focus as much as possible, so I'm less bothered by the autofocus performance of the 50mm f/1.8 than the microscopic manual focus ring. Optically it's the best lens I own, including the 55-250mm I'm about to buy.

 

[wheelhot]

Other Canon non-L lenses that don't suck:

15/2.8 fisheye
17-55/2.8 IS
28/1.8
45/2.8 Tilt-Shift
50/1.8 (well, it sucks in low light)
50/1.4
85/1.8
90/2.8 tilt-shift
100/2
70-300 DO IS
28-135/3.5-4.5 IS

Thanks, very useful. Saved it

 

[GT41]

Hmm, is it me or most Canon lens that is not in the L -series sucks (except the EF Macro USM lens)

I don't know that you can really say that. Both the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 are non-L lenses and are truly amazing. Also as far as telephoto I've always loved the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Though clearly not an L lens it is probably my favorite lens to use. Though its $600 I think this would be a good lens for this discussion.

 

[Grimace]

I don't know that you can really say that. Both the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 are non-L lenses and are truly amazing. Also as far as telephoto I've always loved the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Though clearly not an L lens it is probably my favorite lens to use. Though its $600 I think this would be a good lens for this discussion.

Agreed, no one should get hung up on the L moniker. The two non-L 50mm versions (1.8 and 1.4) are in some ways BETTER than the 1.2L, as it has focusing problems. Short/mid-range primes, when used properly, are almost always amazing. Long-range primes need to have lots more glass (and cost) so Canon adds the L and calls them pro. It's just next to impossible to make a long prime (300mm+) without a significant cost.

I would spend the extra dough on better zooms than primes. Zooms are really easy to do poorly, and primes are usually faster and cheaper because of the simpler optics.

Check reviews on FredMiranda.com and other sites. We have lots to say too, so keep posting!

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Well, I bought the EF-S 55-250mm IS. Came to about $340 out the door with tax and a cheapish UV filter. There was a different salesperson at Ritz today, and she was annoying as hell. I walked in and told them exactly which lens I wanted and tried it on my camera. But rather than ring me out she insisted on trying to sell me on an extended warranty, plus showed me all the photo books, knicknacks and prints...finally I was able to buy the damned lens!

I headed out to the canyon...and promptly got hit with a hail/snow/sleet squall. The higher elevations were crap visibility and I didn;t get anything good up there. I got a few decent shots down the canyon a bit, perhaps my best was the closeup below, which in retrospect looks a little boring (cropped and auto level adjust, but nothing else). I should probably crop it more, but I wanted to keep the out of focus leaves in the background.

Not a great day, all told. But I do have a new lens! I can say that the IS really seems to work. I was able to hand hold a few shots that are usually too slow form me. I've got two weeks to return the lens, but at this point I think I'll keep it.

 

[wheelhot]

Well, I bought the EF-S 55-250mm IS. Came to about $340 out the door with tax and a cheapish UV filter. There was a different salesperson at Ritz today, and she was annoying as hell. I walked in and told them exactly which lens I wanted and tried it on my camera. But rather than ring me out she insisted on trying to sell me on an extended warranty, plus showed me all the photo books, knicknacks and prints...finally I was able to buy the damned lens!

Haha, well they are just doing their job

That's a nice photo taken, did you take it at 250mm?

 

[Grimace]

Well, I bought the EF-S 55-250mm IS.

Keep taking shots and posting them!

 

[Yoursh]

EF 75-300 for $100 worth it?

I was of the same mind in looking for a my first zoom for my XSi. I had decided on waiting and saving my money up for a 70-200 f/4L, but the other day I found a local store has the 75-300 III non-USM lens on clearance for $100. At that price I am half tempted to pick it up just to have a zoom until I can get the f/4L.(most likely not until early next year) Just wondering what the consensus is on this idea. I know the quality isn't the best, but at least I would have more range than 55mm. Just not sure.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

That's a nice photo taken, did you take it at 250mm?

55mm, f/8, 1/400 sec. I did get some good technical results out beyond 100mm but the subjects were all boring...

Just wondering what the consensus is on this idea. I know the quality isn't the best, but at least I would have more range than 55mm. Just not sure.

Well, you know my answer! Based on my research, the cheap 75-300 is not worth buying unless your only criteria is price. I did not really want to pay what the 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS cost, but it is a much better lens, something I might be interested in keeping even if I get a 70-200mm f/4 L. It's lightweight and the IS does really seem to work.

 

[Grimace]

I was of the same mind in looking for a my first zoom for my XSi. I had decided on waiting and saving my money up for a 70-200 f/4L, but the other day I found a local store has the 75-300 III non-USM lens on clearance for $100. At that price I am half tempted to pick it up just to have a zoom until I can get the f/4L.(most likely not until early next year) Just wondering what the consensus is on this idea. I know the quality isn't the best, but at least I would have more range than 55mm. Just not sure.

You'll be throwing away $100. If the shots are not worth looking at, I'd say wait until you have the cash for the f/4 70-200mm.