What's your go-to long lens?

[smmokan]

I'm thinking about getting a longer lens (200mm+) for my 50D. I don't shoot on the long end of the range much, but I'd like to have the option every once in a while. So- I'm thinking of getting something like the Tamron 18-270mm, one of the better super zooms that could serve as an all-purpose lens as well when I don't feel like bringing along my two lenses. I don't need the long end to be pro-level or anything, since I won't be using it for anything serious or any paying jobs. The other lens I was thinking of is the newer Tamron 70-300mm VC lens, which would compliment my current set of lenses nicely. No, I don't want the Canon 70-200.

Right now I have a Canon 15-85 IS and a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8. What do you guys use?

[kidwoo]

No, I don't want the Canon 70-200.

Why the hell not!!!!?????

[Fuzz]

My current go-to long lens is the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. It is an unbelievable lens, but since you already have coverage up to 150 and don't want the 70-200, the other long lenses I've tried are the Tamron 18-270 (still have it, looking to sell it), and the Canon 28-300 L.

The Tamron is okay. Somewhat soft in general, more so around the edges. This was at 18mm, f/3.5, and you can see the distortion/softness (most evident around the right-hand edge):

Anguilla 2010 by FuzzSummit, on Flickr

Wasn't really satisfied with it (actually seemed a step down IQ-wise from the older Tamron 18-200). So got the Canon 28-300 L. Good lens in terms of IQ (though nowhere near the 70-200 II). Only reason I sold it was because I needed to fund a telescope purchase. Then when I wanted the long end again, I wanted a faster constant-aperture lens (hence my current 70-200). Some samples from it:

Day 27_3 by FuzzSummit, on Flickr


Day 28_3 by FuzzSummit, on Flickr


2010-09-16 13-41-26_068 by FuzzSummit, on Flickr


2010-09-24 12-32-00_187 by FuzzSummit, on Flickr

A few more from the 28-300 in my for-sale thread here.

Good thing about the Tamron is that it is very compact, light, and inexpensive (even cheaper if you buy mine! ). The Canon is very heavy, big, and expensive, but gave better images. For a general, non-stellar walk-around lens, the Tamron is easily better than the Canon (especially if it'll be a once-in-a-while thing as you mentioned).

[pointedem]

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produc...C-20E-III.html

other then that, 300 f/4.

[Fuzz]

The sale on the 55-250 might still be on: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/....php?t=1059143

[mtcham]

My buddy shoots Canon and uses the 70-200mm IS 2.8 and the 100-400mm Canon. He'd tell you to go big or go home. I guess if you are making money I would invest it back into good glass.

I shoot the nikon 300mm f4 with a 1.4TC probably 90% of the time. You might check out a prime and add a TC later.

[Chainsaw_Willie]

I've got the Nikon 70-300. It's the only lens with that much reach I could afford. Does a pretty good job, I took the moon shot in the last MPC with it and have gotten some good bird & animal pics with it too. If Canon has an equivalent with equal/better IQ, that might be the way to go.

[advres]

I got a Sigma 100-300 I'm looking to get rid of $600 plus shipping. I'll give particulars of you're interested.

[powdork]

i'm a lens jong, but i've been relatively happy with my sigma 50-200 f/4-5.6 dc os with hsm for canon af. it's definitely not pro level (nor am i), but it was relatively inexpensive and it's not overly heavy as far as i can tell. there are times i wish it was faster at the long end, but i've only ever tried one other lens (schralphs 70-200 2.8 ???) and felt the same way***



^^^was in fairly poor light from a distance. i should have some video up from the same lens although it will only tell you that i suck at video.

***when i say faster, i mean it has a hard time focusing at the longer focal points on moving objects (skiers). am i using the term correctly?

[advres]

***when i say faster, i mean it has a hard time focusing at the longer focal points on moving objects (skiers). am i using the term correctly?

Faster is a wider aperture allowing you to shoot increased frame rates in the same amount of light. An f/2.8 is a fsster lens than f/3.5. f/1.4's are like ferarri's but hard to control

And I saw the edit about the video. video is hard to shoot on a DSLR period. Throw bad light and a long lens into the mix and even a very skilled person can have problems. I'm sure you're being overly hard on yourself. Don't worry though, I'm super self judgmental myself.

[powdork]

for the record, the commons beach shows kill it, and i hope that's what our beloved city council has in store for us when the el dorado beach is done.

[Trainwreck]

70-200 2.8 and a 2x Teleconverter. That gives me 70-200 at 2.8 or 140-400 5.6 on the full frame sensor and 105-300 2.8 or 210-600 5.6 on the crop bodies.

[hop]

As a Nikon guy, I use Carl Skoog's old 300mm f4 and the 70-200 2.8 VRII. I recently got to play with the 200-400 f4 and it was awesome, but I'm not going to be dropping 6k on a lens anytime soon. Instead, I'm contemplating getting that 2x teleconverter for super zooming action; reviews seem solid enough - Pointedem what are your thoughts and what lenses do you use it with?

Canon's 100-400 5.6 and Nikon's 80-400 5.6 are both worthless IMO.

[supermodel159]

200 2.8L is my longest lens, and my favorite.

This was taken with the 200 w/ a 2xTC.

[hop]

Great shot. First thing I thought of was this:

[smmokan]

Damn, I forgot about TCs.... maybe I'll look into that to use with my Sigma 50-150. A cheap 1.4x would give me 70-210 with constant f/4.

[kidwoo]

Yeah who cares about trinkets. Supermodel and hop need to start a thread on wave pics.

[supermodel159]

Great shot. First thing I thought of was this:

Chris's shot might have been the most viewed action sports photograph last year, thanks to Red Bull. That shot has about 20 elements coming together at the same time, an amazing once in a lifetime shot.

[advres]

That capture is so goddamn money!

[pointedem]

It's nasty. Check out reviews around the web.... the consensus is Nikon hit a home run with the III version.

[alembical]

I have heard nothing but good things about the Tamron 70-300... at least with Nikon mount, although I can only assume it would be the same on Cannon. I personally really like the 70-300 range. I have never been real impressed with the huge range 18- or 28 - to 270 or 300. But they are convenient.

[hop]

I have heard nothing but good things about the Tamron 70-300... at least with Nikon mount, although I can only assume it would be the same on Cannon. I personally really like the 70-300 range. I have never been real impressed with the huge range 18- or 28 - to 270 or 300. But they are convenient.

I had one and was completely underwhelmed. I got it for a trip to Kenya; it was either my old 80-200 2.8 or the 70-300 5.6 and I thought I'd rather have the reach and a lighter lens (and cheaper in case I had to fend off a charging rhino) instead of the extra light but after about a day I knew I made the wrong choice. If you can only have one, the 2.8 trumps the 300.

[eug]

No, I don't want the Canon 70-200.

Ohhh yes you do. Used, non IS version. With 1.4 TC you get 280 on the long end.

[Trainwreck]

My current go-to long lens is the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

My buddy shoots Canon and uses the 70-200mm IS 2.8

70-200 2.8

the 70-200 2.8 VRII.

If you can only have one, the 2.8

^^ add me to the 70-200 f/2.8 list too....

Steve, I think I'm sensing a trend here...

[Lonnie]

^^ add me to the 70-200 f/2.8 list too....