Telephoto lens?

[need2huntmor]

I'm looking for some help/opinions.  I have had my Canon 40D for a couple months now, with the 17-85mm lens that came with it.  I need a telephoto lens.  I will use the lens for taking photos of my son in sports and activities as he grows, and for wildlife.  I don't know if I could afford getting into a 300/400/100-400 L series lens right now.  While those lenses would be great for wildlife, would they  be too much to handle for the more everyday photos of family activities?  Would I  be better off going with a "smaller", "cheaper" lens right now (70-300 IS or 70-200 L non IS), and then step up to a more wildlife oriented lens later?  Would a 70-300, or a 70-200 with a 1.4x, or 2.0x teleconverter, be a decent wildlife lens?  I know it's a little long winded, but any information would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

[huntnphool]

You should be able to find a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for around $1100.00

[popeshawnpaul]

I think I would try and stick with an L series lens.  The 70-200 F4 L (non IS) is only about $500 used.  That is a much better lens than the 70-300 at about the same cost.  Also, you could add the 1.4x for a 100-280mm equivalent at f5.6.  Don't even think about the 2x.  The 1.4x would work in a pinch for wildlife.  You could upgrade to a 2.8 version later on when funds become more available and the L series lens will hold its resale value when that time comes.  The 70-300 IS is a decent consumer lens though...

[need2huntmor]

If I went with a 70-200 f4 non IS now, should I use the money to upgrade to a f2.8 later, or to a better wildlife lens such as the 300, or 100-400?  How much difference is there between the 70-200 f4 and f2.8?  How much difference between the IS and non IS?

[popeshawnpaul]

Good questions.  Use the 70-200 f4 L now and if you really like the focal length and use it a lot then get the f2.8 if you ever find situations where you are out of light and need that extra shutter speed.  If you don't ever need the speed and you shoot outdoors, just get the F4 L IS version and be happy.  If you find you don't use the focal length as much as you thought, then spend that extra money on another lens like the ones you suggested. 

For sports, the 70-200 is king...

[huntnphool]

Just get the 70-200 2.8 and end the confusion, you can add the 1.4 later to add more length.

[javman]

What side of the state are you on? If you're on the west side, you're going to want the fastest (lowest number aperture) you can get... especially if you're planning on looking for wildlife in dense forests or early/late in the day when there isn't much light. If you're on the east side, you can probably get away with a slower lens.

Eventually, you're going to find that 200mm isn't enough for wildlife, unless you've got a really nice ghili suit and know how to use it.

So either buy cheap, and starting saving. Or buy the best you can afford (and start saving). Hmm that ain't much help. 

How is Can*n's 300mm f/4 guys? Primes like that tend to give better sharpness and contrast (and with wildlife, more often than not you're going to be using the long end of your zoom).

And you can always try before you buy: http://www.lensrentals.com/

[need2huntmor]

How important is the IS?  Would you pay more for a faster lens (f4 vs f2. or for the IS (f4 IS vs f2.8 non IS)?  Huntnphool, where could I find a EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for around $1100?  I'm assuming that is for a used lens.  Where is a good place to buy used lenses?  Is there anything to look out for with a used 70-200?  I hear stories of older copies of the 100-400 not being as good as newer copies.  Anything I should look out for? 

[popeshawnpaul]

How important is IS?  I would never buy a telephoto lens without it.  I don't like to use a tripod unless I have to and with IS I rarely need a tripod, even with a 400mm lens...
4
Would I pay more for a faster lens (f2.8 vs f4) or for a lens with IS?  If I only had about $1100, I would get the f4 IS version over the f2.8 non-IS version.  It is that important.

I think $1100 for a f2.8 L IS is a bit low.  I've seen them for $1300 or so but not that low.  You can find the IS f4 version for about $1000.  I would buy on fredmiranda.com for used lenses.  Reputable sellers with good equipment there.  Just look for a new date code lens if you are buying.  You also want to either try it out or get sample full size images to look at sharpness.  You can look up the date codes to see when the lens was made.  The f4 IS versions are newer so all will be within the last couple years though.  One of the reasons I recommend the f4 IS version is it's the newest one with the best 5 stop IS system.  The f2.8 IS version has the older 3 stop IS.  While I have that lens and like it, I have often thought of selling it for the much lighter f4 IS version that is supposed to be the sharpest zoom lens Canon has ever made.  That's where my money would be in I had 1k...

I've never found a 100-400 that is sharp although I think they exist as I know people that have used them.  Older copies were not as good and that lens tends to wear out quicker due to the push/pull design of the zoom.  The problem with this lens is the IS is old, it's slow at f5.6, and can issues with sharpness depending on the copy you recieve.  Try before you buy unless it's a reputable seller saying it's sharp.
 
To answer your question Javman, the 300 f4 IS is a good lens.  It's not as sharp as the f2.8 IS version but it's useable even with a 1.4x.  A good lens for the money but the IS is kind of old and not as good as the new IS systems.

[ivarhusa]

On the low end, I suggest a Tamron 18-250 lens. I could only afford one lens, and this one is very versatile.  I never have to take the lens off the body, so I keep contamination out of the works.  It is true, that I wish I had more focal length at times, but I think effort spent stabilizing the platform (via tripod) goes a long ways toward getting useful images of distant subjects. In other words, a 200 mm lens with a tripod is better (imo) than a longer focal length without.  But then, what serious photographer shoots long lenses without a tripod? OK, at times... but as a general rule a good tripod is an essential accessory for the wildlife photographer.  We could talk tripods as well...
 

[need2huntmor]

Since the subject was brought up.  How many use tripods or monopods?  If you do, what are they?  Approximately how much did they cost?

[popeshawnpaul]

Honestly, many pros go without these days or simply use a monopod.  I know when I am using a 400mm f4 DO IS, I don't use a tripod and it isn't necessary down to about 1/125th of a second.  The only reason I use a monopod at times is because my arm gets tired holding up the lens.  My pro buddy Tony uses a 200-400 VR and mostly keeps it on a monopod for that reason.  Some stability is gained with a monopod with the VR or IS so you can get sharp images.

If you don't have IS or VR, you must have a tripod.  Me personally, I hate carrying and setting up a tripod so I prefer IS.  I guess if you are shooting birds on the boardwalk with a 600mm lens you need one.  No thanks...

[need2huntmor]

Thanks for the responses.  A lot of great information for me.  I will let you know what I decide on, or can afford, right now.

[ivarhusa]

Popeshawnpaul has more confidence in his handholding than I do.  The old rule of thumb, that has served us well over the years is to limit handheld shots to where you can use a shutter speed that is at least the inverse of the focal length of the lens.  Translated, that means that if you are using a 400mm lens, you can be more confident of a crisp shot if you can shoot at 1/400th of a second or faster.  That is not to say that PSP has not taken many fine shots at 1/125th of a second with his 400mm lens.

I don't shoot a lot of 'fine pictures', more grab shots really, and I don't own a real nice tripod, just a Velbon. (To let you know where I am coming from.) For years I kept a mini-tripod (6"tall) in my camera bag, and it served me well.  I may have to get another, as they are more likely to be with me when the opportunity for a great shot comes up.

Ivar

 

[popeshawnpaul]

I agree, that is the rule for handheld shots Ivar.  However, the new lenses have 3 stop IS and some have 5 stop IS.  They give that number because it's the amount of stops below the rule you have quoted that you can be safe handholding.  So if you shoot a 500mm lens at 1/500th handheld and want to figure out what you can use it at with IS, you would subtract 3 stops from the IS.  So the 1/500th goes one stop to 1/250th, one more to 1/125th, and one more to 1/60th.  Being able to shoot a 500mm lens at 1/60th of a second is amazing new technology that I'm really excited about.  I love being able to get rid of the tripod.  In fact, I haven't used a tripod for wildlife in almost 2 years...

Here are 2 examples with the 400mm F4 L DO IS.  The bear is shot at f5.6 and 1/90th of a second handheld.  The sheep is shot at f4.5 and 1/180th of a second.  I have a few 1/10th of a second shots handheld too...