: New firmware version 1.4.1 is available for EOS R3 If I opted not to buy either the Sigma or Tamron that is my lens of choice. You can find them on the used market at reasonable prices. Canon also has the Canon EF Telephoto 400mm f/5.6L USM which is no longer made and a wonderful lens that is very light and extremely sharp. Outstanding lens but it is more than twice the price and you give up 200mm of FL. They do have the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens. Normally I would recommend sticking with Canon but Canon does not have a lens in this category. Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens. My personal choice if I were to buy today would be the Tamron G2 but only slightly. I consider this to be personal choice as both of these are very good and are very close in specs. I would suspect if you checked out some of the birder web sites all would agree 200mm isn't enough FL most of the time. The old saying, "you can never have enough focal length", remains mostly true. Adding a monopod may help but I simply hand hold mine most of the time. Both lenses are big but they are not unbearably difficult to handle. The Sigma C model or the Tamron G2 model will work very well on the T7i. I use a 150-600mm zoom to take pictures of them. We have a few bald eagles nesting around us. For that matter, if she has the 18-135mmm, a 70-200mm would be a relatively minor improvement." "If she already has that 55-250mm lens, a 70-200mm will not be of any help to her. The opinion of Ricky and Rodger is spot on. GEAR: 5DII, 7DII (x2), 7D(x2), EOS M5, some other cameras, various lenses & accessories It is the cheapest, but also slower focusing, lacks image stabilization and doesn't have very good image quality. I do not recommend the Canon EF 75-300mm lens. Then, taking that and the weight of these lenses into consideration, get her the longest telephoto she will be willing to carry around.ġ8-135mm, 55-250mm, 70-200mm f/4 & 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses.ġ8=55mm, 70-300mm, 70-300mm L & 100-400mm lenses. You need to check what lens your wife already has. For wildlife, birds and such, I use the 100-400mm or a 500mm. I've also got a pair of 70-200s and sometimes have one of them on the other camera, for the closer shots. I shoot all day some days with a 100-400mm on one of my two cameras. But it's considerably larger and even slightly heavier than a 70-200mm f/2.8. And it's less than half the weight of a 70-200mm f/2.8!Įven better still would be a Canon EF 100-400mm IS USM II. I really don't think the 200mm of a 70-200 is "enough".Ĭanon EF 70-300mm IS USM II would be a little bit better and is a fairly compact lens. If she already has that 55-250mm lens, a 70-200mm will not be of any help to her.įor that matter, if she has the 18-135mmm, a 70-200mm would be a relatively minor improvement.Įven if all she has now is an EF-S 18-55mm, "shooting soccer" and "photographing eagles" both call for as much telephoto as she is willing to carry around. They also often could be bought with a two lens kit: EF-S 18-55mm and EF-S 55-250mm. However, what lens does your wife already have? T7i were often offered in kit with either EF-S 18-55mm or EF-S 18-135mm. The Canon EF 70-200mm lenses are excellent! No argument there. I am an outlier because I don't use a monopod that would limit my mobility on the field so I handhold very heavy lenses like the EF 400 f2.8 and EF 200-400 f4 but from a fixed location a monopod would work well. A monopod attached to the 70-200 f2.8 to take the weight is another consideration. So you will need to decide about the weight and price tradeoff versus better low light performance. From the fans area, the distance is considerably longer so in most cases ability to crop is going to be needed. I use two bodies for sports events with a 70-200 f2.8 on one and a longer telephoto prime on the other so for me the 70-200 is for close to medium range shots and I am shooting from just off the sideline. This greatly reduces the ability to crop a large image while retaining quality. With a t7i and night field conditions, a f4 lens may push the image sensor speed up to a point where significant noise is added and detail is lost. I recently shot a playoff match using a Canon EF 200-400 f4 with integrated extender that turns it into a f5.6 lens and it worked well under LED field lighting BUT I was using it with a 1DX Mark III body which plays very well at high ISO. High school field lighting has improved a lot at many schools in recent years and image sensors are getting better so f4 is more of a reasonable choice than it used to be. Whether that is a good tradeoff depends upon how many of the soccer matches she plans to shoot are after sunset both now and in future years. The f4 version of the 70-200 is lighter (and less expensive).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |