telephoto question

[Ken Diewert]

Mick,

We were in Tamarindo back in '93 and got to see some leatherbacks nesting. I hadn't heard about the decline. That's bad news. Magnificent creatures.

We also were in Tortugero (no turtles, but lots of other stuff). I went for a memorable unguided midnight hike there, with 4 others.

[Mick Jenner]

Ken,
One of our funniest memories from Tortugero was of a hike into the rain forest . We were supplied with wellington boots up to the knees, unfortuantly the flooding in places came up the thighs. I was useing an xl1 then and got some great shots of us trying to pick our way through. In the end we gave up being cautious and just ploughed head long through the flooding emptying our boots at the end.

Regards

Mick

[Ken Diewert]

Well, I can rent a Canon 1.6x to try for a month, and/or buy a 70-200mm f/4 L series Canon lens ($999.00 brand new). I checked e-bay and i could pick one up cheaper, but probably wouldn't get it in time. Also could get the same lens in f/2.8, but can't find one locally (so far).

With the 1.6x, I retain electronic functionality, but how bad are the images?

Anybody tried the 1.6x on the H1???

[Ken Diewert]

Crap!, I've spent about 8 hours on this today. I've now got a line on a couple of lenses (both f/2.8 and f/4), in the 70-200L models. A couple of new and a couple of used. I didn't realize that they were available in both IS and non-IS. So you've got to shop carefully.

Does anyone have thoughts on IS versus non-IS in these lenses??

I think I'm going to take the 1.6x with me anyway but I don't know how much I'll use it.

[Mick Jenner]

Ken,

Mine is the 70-200mm L 2.8 NOT IS. I am very pleased with it and It was £300 cheaper than the IS version, got it new off eBay £720. I believe the IS works differently between video and still lenes and should not genarally be used. I only use the lens on a tripod and the IS would be turned off anyway. When I asked the question of the advatages IS on the forums (I believe either this one or the XLH1) the general opinion was not to use IS, but it could be useful when filming in high winds etc.

Regards

Mick

[Mick Jenner]

Ken,
Another thought have you considered the 100-400 mm L f4. People have posted that it could be a bit soft at the long end thats why I plumped for the 70-200 at the time, but I have since learn't that some wildlife film makers here in the UK have them and are happy with the qualitity of the recording but do only go to about 380mm. This lens should not be much more than the price of the 70-200 f2.8 non IS. By the way you will need to use ND filters on them.

Regards

Mick

[Per Johan Naesje]

Ken & Mick, I will hopefully try out the Canon EF 100-400mm /4,5-5,6L the week between Xmas and NewYearEve (next week). This will be a fine time to compare this lens with the prime 300mm f2.8 due to low light conditions here up in north. This will also be my first real try out with the Canon XLH1 too.

This will be a very busy Xmas holiday for me I think :-)

[Mick Jenner]

Hi Per,

Look forward to hearing about your thoughts on the 100-400 in the New Year.
Your filming looks as if it is going to be very cold with interesting light conditions. I will be giving my gear a good testing over the New Year in the hot and dusty conditions in Kenya.
(If we can fly away as Heathrow London Airport is fog bound at the moment, hopefully things will have improved by next week)

Regards

Mick

[Dale Guthormsen]

Ken,

I have a 1.6 extender for my xl2. I would recomend a 200 mm lens.

the 1.6 is better than nothing, but the images definitely soften the further out you extend yourself from the shot!!

If you are wanting clear plumages on small birds and such the 1.6 will not do the job, at least to my satisfaction.

the reason I personally like zoom lenses is that it allows me to do cropping when out in the field.

Just a thought.

Definitely use l series lenses if you can afford to. I am using fd lenses and I will be switching over this spring.

the problem with the f 2.8 aperature lenses is they are so darn expensive.


Dale

[Dale Guthormsen]

Per Johan,

I look forward to hearing your comentaries on using the 100 to 400 on your hd!!!

I do not know if the h1 is in my budget for awhile, but I do go that way I would want to take my lenses with me.

Wonder if you could buy just the body and use ones other lenses??

[Ken Diewert]

Dale,

Don't rush to the H1. Remember we still can't output to HD-DVD yet anyways. The big advantage I suppose is that we have HDV masters for now.

I have an option to buy a Sigma 70-210 APO f/2.8 ($250 CDN), which seems to be too cheap. I read some reviews for the lens where many think it's not too far behind the L lens, and overall a pretty good lens.

My other solid option is to pick up an L series 70-200 f/4 for about $800 cdn (non IS).

I'm also enquiring about 2 used 70-200 f/2.8 that I found online at a shop in Vancouver ($899.00 each).

Disappointing to hear about the 1.6x. But them what should I expect. When you really think about it, how it a small element like that going to give you 60% magnification without sacrificing (heavily) on image quality.

[Ken Diewert]

OK, here's the latest...

The f/2.8 I found (used), at a camera shop is an 80-200mm L series. This is a 15 year old lens (black), that supposedly is in 9 out of 10 condition. I'm getting it transferred to a more local branch of the camera shop where they said I could try it out.

So, it's a Canon L series 80-200 f/2.8 for $899.00 CDN. If it isn't in mint shape, I'll likely just by the new non-IS 70-200 f/4 for $800.

I just can't afford the brand new f/2.8 right now.

I cancelled the 1.6x rental.

[Duane Burleson]

I think that is over priced a bit for the black 80-200/2.8 even though it is the sharpest zoom Canon made in that range, sharper than the current 70-200/2.8 IS or non-IS that Canon makes. You should also make sure the 80-200 is compatable with your camera. I used one for 10 years and miss it. Also, I don't believe Canon repairs them any longer.

The 70-200/4 non-IS is a wonderful, sharp and lightweight lens (compared to the 2.8). The IS version is new to Canon's lineup this year and I have not used one. My experience with this gear is as a profession still photographer shooting sports, wildlife and some commercial work. I'd love to have and XL series camera to hook my 500 f/4 to. My video gear is pretty basic with a Sony TRV900 with Century Optics 2x.

I was also under the impression from other posts I've read that the IS function of these lenses intended for their 35mm cameras did not work on the XL series video cameras. Am I wrong about that??

Duane

[Mick Jenner]

I was also under the impression from other posts I've read that the IS function of these lenses intended for their 35mm cameras did not work on the XL series video cameras. Am I wrong about that??

Duane[/QUOTE]

I believe yes
The IS works with EF lenes when used in conjuction with the EF adapter

Regards

Mick

[Ken Diewert]

I just bought a 70-200 L f/2.8 on e-bay for $1025 CDN in mint condition. It's a non-IS but is otherwise practically new (from a reputable dealer of used gear). The owner upgraded to the IS model. I had been looking at it but didn't think I could get it before I take off on Jan 9.

Thanks for the help.

Oh! I hope I won't need rail support....