Hi all,

I've spent quite some time reading archived posts in this and other camera forums, and it seems lens quality for the money questions are by far the most common. Indeed, many people are hoping to get something for nothing, or even trolling for approval on a decision they've already made.

However, there are those like myself that are coming into photography from other hobbies, and our expectations are more realistic. Just as it's true that you get what you pay for, it is also true that there is a law of diminishing returns. Furthermore, for many people there exists a product that may have weaknesses, but excells exactly where they need it to.

Since my first post, I have tried out many lenses, and have made some purchases which are working out quite well for me so far. I bought 24mm and 50mm primes for my landscape, building, and indoor existing light photography. All I need are some lenses in the longer focal lengths.

This is where things get sticky, and I need some help. Primes in the telephoto range are mucho expensive; Sigma 105 + Canon 200/2.8 = $968. For that price, I might as well get an L zoom. But before I pay for a 70-200 2.8 L, I want to make sure I'm not overbuying (price = $1150) for my needs. I have a few alternative scenarios I want to throw by everybody:

1) Since I really want to be able to throw backgrounds out of focus in outdoor portraits, I get the Sigma 105/2.8 prime. Having a fast lens for portraits, I'm free to go with a 100-300 USM to reach out more. My demands are greatest in my landscape and portrait shots; I'm willing to put up with SOME softness and loss of contrast in my long distance "critter" pics from a tripod if it gets me closer. But is the USM too far below the L, or only slightly? Is it on par with the better "mid end" zooms such as the 28-105? Will I notice with 4x6 prints? Price = $588

2) I go with the Sigma 70-200/2.8 and I can always pick up a 2X teleconverter so I can reach out to 400 which is the farthest reach of all my options. Price = $749 ($918 with telecoverter)

3) Get the Canon 70-200/4L, which relatively light (and cheap) with very high optical quality. But is f/4 wide enough to blur a distracting background? I know that question has no absolute answer, but from your experiences, do you find it is most of the time? Or do you use the 2.8 frequently? Price = $579

I'm also open to any good ideas that I may not have considered.

Thanks for bearing with me!

-- Steven Darche (kingluisiv@hotmail.com), August 30, 2001

Answers

Hi Steven,

I would suggest to you the Canon 100-300mm f/5.6L EF. It is half the price of the 70-200mm f/4L, and is said to be tack sharp. It's not USM, so does not focus as fast, and there's no full time manual override.

For $330 US, vs the $660 for the 70-200mm f/4L, or $1130 for 70-200mm f/2.8L -- you've got nice optics for a steal. I think you'd have to go with a high grade third party TC (multi-coated, multiple elements) if you needed further reach (a 1.4x would only cost you one stop, and give you a 140-420mm f/8 [about the same as the 70-200mm f/4L with a 2x TC, better actually] & a 2x would give a 200-600mm f/11 [very dark, & the image quality might be pretty poor]) -- I don't think the Canon TC's will work with it.

Might this fit your bill for only one zoom lens to go along with your stable of primes?

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 30, 2001.

The good news is that one of your concerns has an absolute answer: background blur is determined by the physical diameter of the lens's aperture, if all else remains equal. So a 105/2.8 has about the same blur potential as a 50/1.4, both of which are a good deal behind a 200/2.8.

None of the telephoto options are perfect for all purposes. (Certainly not for blur. 70mm and f/2.8 wouldn't be descibed as "fast" by any means.) The option I would choose is the 70-200/4 and a portrait or macro lens, depending on your taste.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), August 30, 2001.

Dear Stephen,

Why do you want Sigma lens? Optically Canon lens is better. Tokina is between Sigma and Canon. This is my general feeling after reading tons of user reviews.

There are three top quality Canon telephoto primes which are reasonably priced: 1/ 85/1.8 USM $345 or 100/2.0 USM $399 2/ 300/4L USM (Non IS version) around $800 new if you search around

I have the 100/2.0 (very sharp) and the bokeh is nice. I own Noctilux 50/1.0 and use 75/1.4 Sumilux (Leica M) very often so I know a bit about bokeh (blurred background).

Get a 2x teleconverter then you have 200/4.0.

I care about optical quality and weight so relatively inexpensive Canon primes fit my bill.

-- Damond Lam (damond_lam@hotmail.com), August 30, 2001.

Steven,

I have both the 200mm f/2.8L and the 70-200 f/4L. Both are sharp, with the edge going to the 200mm f/2.8. I'd consider the 200mm f/2.8L along with any 100mm macro lens (most macro lenses regardless of make are pretty sharp). The 70-200 f/4 L is a good lens, but you can at a later date use Canon's 2x converter with the 200mm f/2.8 to give you a decent 400mm f/5.6 and still have autofocus capability with your EOS camera with the center focus point.

The 200mm f/2.8L is physically shorter than the 70-200 f/4L but a bit bigger in diameter (bigger front element, f/2.8 remember). Really for portraiture, f/2.8 and 200mm, plus somewhat close focusing, gives very, very shallow depth of field so f/4 or f/5.6 would most likely be used anyhow. These will still blur the background quite nicely.

Regards

-- SR (ratzlaff@ticnet.com), August 30, 2001.

Thank you all so much for your input. By all suggestions, a 100mm prime is in my future as my "bokeh" happy portrait lens regardless of my zoom choice. The only reason not to buy a 100mm prime would be if I got a 70-200/2.8, but I think I've pretty much figured out it's a mismatch with my needs at this point. I'll buy my third prime, the last relatively affordable prime. The only thing I have left to decide on is my first question; the zoom! But if I'm not expecting it to do portraits at 100mm, then that eases my aperture hunger considerably. I must say that Hung's suggestion of the 100-300/5.6L is a very tempting morsel indeed.

-- Steven Darche (kingluisiv@hotmail.com), August 30, 2001.

Yes, getting an L series lens for the price of a consumer zoom! I've even managed to talk my wife into it...just waiting for that tax refund check! :-)

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 31, 2001.

Steven,

I think you will be pleased with the 100 as a portrait lens. I bought a 100 2.0 for portraits a year ago and I love it. It does a terrific job with sharpness and backround blur. I am beginning to like my new 200 2.8L for portraits too; be careful with whatever zoom you buy - you may find yourself leaning toward longer focal lengths for your portraits!

Derrick

-- Derrick Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), September 13, 2001.

I'd like to reinforce a point made earlier, in passing. The Law of Dimishing Returns applies optically as well as monetarily, in the case of teleconverters. A 2x converter gives significantly poorer results than a 1.4x converter. Even if the converters are optically perfect, the 2x doubles the size of any defects in the main lens, while the 1.4x enlarges the defects' size by "merely" 40%. In addition, the 1.4x cuts the effective aperture by 1 stop (only half the light going through the main lens reaches the film), while the 2x cuts the effective aperture by 2 stops (only one quarter of the light going through the main lens reacheas the film). In short, 1.4x converters are significantly less harmful to image quality.

-- Michael Lopez (mlopez@ers.usda.gov), October 29, 2001.