70-200/300

[Rhys]

Currently I have a Tamron 70-300. I'm not keen on it for several reasons:
1. It's too long. I find by 300mm optical quality has detereorated unless I pull tricks with tripods etc.
2. I'd prefer a faster aperture.
3. Sometimes it doesn't get on well with my XT, causing an ERR99.

I like the form factor - it's a nice, small lens.

Today I tried a Canon 70-200 f2.8 and it practically broke my wrist - it was that heavy! I'm jolly glad I don't have one of those!

I'm thinking of getting myself a different lens. I'm looking at the following as possible candidates:
Canon 70-200 f4L
Canon 70-200 f4L IS
Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

On the whole I didn't feel the IS on the Canon 70-200 f2.8 helped much (if any) in the shop when I tried it so I'm not that struck on IS. When I tried IS on my S1 IS, the results were spectacular. With the XT and a 70-200 f2.8 the difference was virtually zero.

I do need a lightweight lens since I had a wrist injury some years ago due to an incompetant driver (still can't believe the police didn't prosecute her). When I hold something heavy there's an agonising crunch and my wrist almost makes me scream with pain. Hence I like my XT and light lenses.

Any suggestions/comments?

[cdifoto]

Well first of all toss out the Sigma if the Canon about near broke your wrist. It's no lighter. I'd go for the f/4L IS of those remaining two if budget is no concern, obviously because of the IS. It'll help you out since f/4 isn't really a great aperture for a longish zoom such as that.

On the other hand I haven't looked at any specs (too lazy). The f/4 IS might be just as heavy as the Sigma/Canon f/2.8 non-IS with that IS module added in.

[forno]

what about the 75-300IS?

[aparmley]

So. . . you've said the 2.8 about broke your wrist. The IS in the 2.8 IS version didn't appear effective - well - I wouldn't think it would be if you had that much trouble holding the 2.8 version. I don't think thats any reason to discredit Canon's IS system. If your fighting to hold the camera and lens up to your eye . . . I'd say thats asking too much out of IS.

[cdifoto]

I'd say thats asking too much out of IS.

I'd say get that man some nourishment too! If a 6 year old boy can hold the lens, I fail to see why a middle aged* man couldn't do the same.



*age is assumed.

[DonSchap]

You could always get someone else to take the image, Rhys. :p

f/2.8 in the 70-200mm focal range has price ... and that price is WEIGHT.

I would recommend a wrist brace or wrap and just go with the bigger lens. Develop the strength in that wrist with some real weight training and don't let that stop you. Tough it out. Hoo-rah! :cool:

[cdifoto]

I would recommend a wrist brace or wrap and just go with the bigger lens.

I would recommend calcium. :eek:

[Rhys]

I did say I'd got a wrist injury. It's a permanant thing which is a pain (literally).

[cdifoto]

I did say I'd got a wrist injury. It's a permanant thing which is a pain (literally).

Totally skimmed that part Rhys. Sorry. :(

[forno]

Rhys, if you really want L zoom, then what about a light weight monopod to hold it up with??

[pagnamenta]

Have you considered a monopod or the Canon 70-300 IS. It won't give you a constant aperature but it does have the IS which might be good for your wrist. If you want a constant aperature, the Canon 70-200 f4 (non-IS or IS versions) would be good for you, though they are still L lenses so they'll be heavier than a consumer lens. CDI gave really good choices above.

[Rhys]

Thanks for the monopod suggestion.The problem is the weight of the lens itself. I put the 70-200 f2.8 IS on my XT and within 30 seconds, my wrist was hurting badly. It took about 20 minutes before it returned to normal. After my wrist was injured, I couldn't pick up a pencil for months.

I'm keen on the 70-200 f4 and shall look at the IS version of the 70-300 - if I can find one locally (only Ritz and Columbia Photo).

[forno]

Rhys, the monopod would support the weight of the lens and camera by itself, leaving you to point the combo.

It sounds like you wont find much more comfort with "just" the f4

[forno]

2.8 IS weighs 1400grams

4 non IS is 700 grams

[Rhys]

Hmm. I thought a bit more. Now I'm looking at primes. 135 and 200 seem likely suspects.

[pagnamenta]

forno explained it perfectly. If you have the funds, the 70-200 f2.8 is an amazing lens, IS or not. What you might want to consider is to get the heavier lens and shoot with the monopod supporting all the weight. Then again, if you can't shoot monopod all the time, consider the 70-200 f4 and the 70-300 IS. My local Ritz camera had the 70-300 IS in stock but not the 70-200 f4.

This (http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/canon_300D_alain/images_2/Canon-telephoto-lenses2.jpg) is a good size comparison, though the black lens is not the IS version.