Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Livin in a redneck paradise
    Posts
    1,869

    Looking for best super telephoto lens of all

    This is half just to get this subforum off to a good start, half because I am actually passively (2-5 years) looking at these.

    If the ultimate in image quality is the goal, but smaller size and lower price are preferable, which super telephoto lens would you choose between all available systems, and why? Equivalent focal lengths around 600mm or more, with teleconverters attached if you want.

    For example, I'm pretty impressed by the Canon 300mm f/4. Looks astounding, the size is not bad, and the price is low enough I cold get it and a DSLR camera for less than the price of a similar Olympus prime alone. Even better, it has great new teleconverters available.

    Alternatively the Olympus 90-250mm f/2.8. Great image quality, though not quite up there with top-of-the-line primes, it is far better than any mortal zoom lens can dream of becoming. This is made up for by the fact that it zooms, and Olympus has a superior 1.4x teleconverter that effectively makes it a 126-350mm f/4 zoom lens with little discernible loss of quality. However, it is huge and expensive.

    What would you choose?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    E.Sussex,UK
    Posts
    279

    Question Super Zoom

    For my 60d and on the basis that funds are limited for me,the Canon 70-200 f4 with a 2.0 teleconverter.Cheap for an L series lens,excellent image quality not compromised too much by the teleconverter,also relatively light.Gives a maximum focal length on a Canon APS-C camera of 640mm .

    Disadvantages-no IS and probably better to use the 1.4 converter but then the maximum zoom maximum is 448mm.The white L series zoom also has a more professional look and I just wonder if it might cause me any problems shooting in public places?

    The stabilised version is both a lot more expensive and heavier.

    If money was no object I think I would still be put off by the size and weight of many lenses available despite no doubt excellent image quality.

    Finances dictate that I'll probably end up with the Canon 55-250 zoom.....

    Canon 60D,
    Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.0 DC Macro OS HSM,
    Canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 IS,
    Canon Speedlite 270EX

    Panasonic Lumix DMC GF3,
    Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm/F3.5-5.6

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    685
    How about the "Canon EF200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x zoom" ?
    Looks interesting but will be out of my price range - I am thinking about getting a cheap zoom in the 100-400 range just to have a go at a bit wildlife photography.
    Having a look at second hand Sigma lenses on ebay but am unsure about the comunication compatability problem with some of them.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Livin in a redneck paradise
    Posts
    1,869
    Quote Originally Posted by JPW2020 View Post
    For my 60d and on the basis that funds are limited for me,the Canon 70-200 f4 with a 2.0 teleconverter.Cheap for an L series lens,excellent image quality not compromised too much by the teleconverter,also relatively light.Gives a maximum focal length on a Canon APS-C camera of 640mm .

    Disadvantages-no IS and probably better to use the 1.4 converter but then the maximum zoom maximum is 448mm.The white L series zoom also has a more professional look and I just wonder if it might cause me any problems shooting in public places?

    The stabilised version is both a lot more expensive and heavier.

    If money was no object I think I would still be put off by the size and weight of many lenses available despite no doubt excellent image quality.

    Finances dictate that I'll probably end up with the Canon 55-250 zoom.....
    The 70-200 is indeed one of the best price-to-image quality zooms in existence, possibly the best. However, it doesn't seem like super telephoto to me, or I would have chosen that. F/8 is a little slow for 640mm equivalent, in my opinion.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Livin in a redneck paradise
    Posts
    1,869
    I hadn't heard of that one, good choice! I'll look into it. I liked the 100-400, but the image quality seemed about average, especially for the various quirks the lens apparently has.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Derbyshire, UK
    Posts
    2,481
    Raven for me I'd go with a PL 14-150 just to get that Leica quality and the range versatility. Add a 1.4 or 2x converter & its up to 300mm (effective 600mm). Good quality but drawback for such a light combination not very bright compared to some of your other options. Another off the wall option would be one of the old Sigma 500mm mirror lenses there used to be an f4 version I seem to remember, now that would be a worth a try I'd say to get effectively 1000mm on an Oly dslr.
    Around every picture there's a corner & round every corner there's a picture
    - the fun's in finding them

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •