Amy and I are heading out to Glacier and Yellowstone parks next summer! If our trip to Alaska last year taught me anything about lenses – it’s that 70mm is not enough when you’re looking at things really far away. More below.
This picture is of a wolf that I took in Denali. Can ya see it? No? It’s the white spec in the middle! Majestic.
Some grizzly bears…. I think. Maybe rocks.
These aren’t the original images either. I’ve cropped them heavily to artificially zoom in. Thankfully I’ve got 21 megapixels to work with.
So, I’ve vowed to return to the wilds with a longer lens in my bag. I prefer the flexibility of a zoom so that rules out a fixed prime right away. Historically that’s put me in the 70-200mm or 100-400mm range of the Canon offerings. I kinda discount the 100-400 immediately because it’s old, optically inferior to the newer 70-200s, heavy as hell, and utilizes a push/pull method of zooming that I find awkward.
Enter the 70-200s! There are 5 of them. Really? Yes, it’s confusing and I have to spend 10 minutes re-acquainting myself every time I return to ponder the issue. I’m going to use this post to provide myself a diagram of all the relevant information as much as anything.
Starting at the low end;
Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L
Next step up adds image stabilization;
Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS
Both are probably great, but the F4 isn’t quite as good in low light (speed) or depth of field as the F2.8 models. Not that low light’s really an issue, but speed is. And I do like me some bokeh. Here’s a quick example of why depth of field is nice.
Having that shallow focus really makes the subject you’re focusing on pop.
So you go to F2.8;
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L
But you could also get image stabilization dude;
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS
Yeah boy, now you’re talking….. but uh, there’s a mark II version now;
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II
Aww, what the fuck? I’ve somehow upsold myself from $650 to $2400. I want that mark II though. It’s better in every way, from optics to action! But it’s also heavy at ~3lbs – up there with the 100-400mm. As you increase focal range or aperture size, lenses get bigger and heavier. It’s also obscenely expensive.
But there’s a new contender, just announced the other day.
The Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS. It’s not available yet and there’s no price but I’ve heard tell it might go for $1500. So far the charts say it’s going to be a pretty solid lens optically. It’s 2″ shorter than the 70-200 and about 2lbs instead of 3. And you get an extra 100mm to play with. It is quite a bit slower with the variable aperture of f4-5.6 compared with f2.8 but the other benefits might outweigh all of that.
If the price is right and I see some sample shots with good depth of field, this might be the one for me! At which point I’ll need a new bag to carry it, along with my current 24-70mm, my camera and the flash that Amy bought for me last year. This Domke F-2 has my attention.
3 responses to “lenses, lenses everywhere”
We went to Yellowstone two summers ago – you’ll definitely benefit from the better lensing. We’d be driving along, come around a bend, and get stopped in a massive traffic jamb, with people scrambing out of their RVs to “see the bears” up ahead. Then you get up to the line of park rangers and it’s “see that spec way off on the ridge? That’s a bear!”
You should also think about checking out Grand Teton while you are there, just south of YS. Worth the trip.
Hey Joe, yeah I’ve been already so I know what you mean. Not looking forward to the throngs of people.
We finish the trip in Jackson Hole so we’ll swing by the Tetons on the way out.
Hey Ben, something I just read that you might find interesting is that lenses with a variable aperture are not ideal for video shooting since the max aperture changes depending on your zoom. That 70-300 has a variable aperture. At 70mm it’s f4 and somewhere as you approach 300m it closes to f5.6. So if you’re taking video at 70mm wide open and you zoom in, the aperture will close and change your exposure as you’re recording. Obviously unacceptable.
Guess I have to decide if that’s something I’d find bothersome in practice. I also got the recent advice that the orignal 70-200mm f2.8 IS was once the benchmark by which all other lenses were measured. Just because there’s a new version doesn’t mean the old one is suddenly garbage. And I’m no pro. So maybe I should get off my high horse. Those extra 100mm on the 70-300 lens is still mighty tempting though and optically I think it’d be right up there. Need to use both and see.