Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Canon EOS dSLR (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-eos-dslr-41/)
-   -   Buying a new lense for my Rebel (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-eos-dslr/51083-buying-new-lense-my-rebel.html)

DannyO Apr 1, 2005 12:18 AM

Hey everyone. I am in need of a canon 70-200mm lens. The only question i have is should i get the 2.8 or the 4 apeture. I absolutely need it for the paris airshow this summer and I am also a sports photographer. Like i said in the subject, I own a digital rebel. I think i would be perfectly fine with the f/4 L but i don't want to regret it later. Another thing, the canon lenses seem to retain their value longer so there is a chace that a year down the road, i could sell it for close to the price i bought it for and get the f/2.8 if i have a real need for it. I'd really like to hear what you guys have to say about the two lenses. Thanks!

Danny O.

BobA Apr 1, 2005 12:54 AM

Do you shoot indoor or outdoor sports DannyO? The f4 is supposed to be as good optically as the 2.8 ... but if you need to shoot sports indoors without a flash you will probably need the 2.8.

For myself, I have the f4 on my "wish-list" because I've never needed a longer lens than my 24-70 indoors and the f4 is considerably less expensive and lighter than the f2.8.

I believe there are also some good non-Canon alternatives in the range you are looking for.



Bob

twofruitz Apr 1, 2005 7:03 AM

if you cant choose, buy the better one as in the long run you will get better photos out of it, its also more versatile.

JohnG Apr 1, 2005 7:11 AM

Another Alternative is the Sigma 70-200 2.8. It's about $130 more than the Canon f4 BUT the canon f4 does NOT have a tripod colar (which costs $120). And the Sigma is still $400 less than the Canon 2.8. You'll find a lot of proponents for this lense here (I'm one of them).

As for the resale argument - any great lense from any manufacturer has good resale. If you look out there you don't see a whole lot of used Sigma 70-200 2.8s out there. It isn't because people aren't using them - it's because they're not getting rid of them.

But, if you feel more comfortable sticking with Canon I would also advise the 2.8 over the 4 since you said you want to shoot sports. For sports photography there is no substitution for speed - so if two lenses are optically equivilent you should always get the faster one.

BobA Apr 1, 2005 8:24 AM

JohnG wrote:
Quote:

Another Alternative is the Sigma 70-200 2.8. It's about $130 more than the Canon f4 BUT the canon f4 does NOT have a tripod colar (which costs $120). And the Sigma is still $400 less than the Canon 2.8.
John is correct, the Canon 70-200 f4 does not have a tripod collar while the Canon f2.8 does. The f4 weighs 1.56 lbs without the collar, while the Canon f2.8 weighs 2.8 lbs (3.5 lbs for the IS version), and the Sigma f2.8 weighs 3.06 lbs.

Since the Canon 70-200 f4 is so light compared to the others, I don't believe that a tripod collar is required (for me anyway).

Lots rave about the Sigma though, and it definately is on my list to look at. :-)

Bob

TimApNy Apr 1, 2005 12:33 PM


DannyO

Is the camera the New Rebel XT? I shot a lot of air shows and find most reviews really don't deal with the "air show needs'.

Just wondering your experiences? I'm going to be buying a new SLR-D some and any advice would be welcome.


DannyO Apr 2, 2005 12:13 AM

Nope I have the (6 month) old rebel. I wasn't impressed with what they did with the new one and i'm glad it didn't come out when I was buying my camera. I am very happy with mine and wouldn't have gotten the XT anyway, i don't think its worth the extra money.

Danny O.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2