Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 14, 2009, 11:36 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1
Default

Ok here is the deal, I have just enough cash set aside to buy a nice lens. I was thinking a new 70 - 200 2.8L my local shop will sell it to me for $1,200 I want a good all around lens, kids are active in sports. I like shooting wildlife. I live 15 miles from 2 great bald eagle nesting sites. I would really like a 300mm but I just do not think I can justify a prime just for me. My question is really should I get the 70-200 2.8L new without is. Or should I take a chance and buy a used one with IS on ebay.
or should I delay gratification for another 6 months and buy new with IS.
Thanks for your help. another option is a new 70-200 4L and a 17-40 4L but I think i want a faster lense.
What do you think
carpetman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 15, 2009, 12:34 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

IMO a new 70-200 f/2.8L would be better (check the links below):
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/19...review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/19...review?start=1
1. IS wouldn't help much in active sports
2. The non-IS is sharper
3. The IS version vignettes more
4. It also has less CA than the IS version !!!

Lastly any 300mm is quite short for most wildlife... and if you believe you can live with a 70-200 f/4L then the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX might be an excellent alternative - This zoom is as sharp if not sharper than Canon's 300mm f/4L prime (and with a 1.4xTC it can get you to 420mm which is a minimum for wildlife):
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/32...review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/171-canon-ef-300mm-f4-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2009, 1:41 AM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Also if you did check the MTF's of the 70-200 f/2.8L with a 1.4xTC (i.e. @ 280mm f/4)?
-> It's not as sharp as the Sigma 100-300 EX at 300 f/4 (without a teleconverter)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2009, 1:33 PM   #4
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

I agree with what NHL said. I have a 70-200mm f2.8L IS but only because I shoot weddings, if not I would have the non IS version. When it comes to shooting wildlife this lens is never a consideration as it is not long enough even with a TC. The Sigma 100-300mm f4 is a lovely lens and till easily take a 1.4x TC still giving great quality.

You could use a 2x TC on the 70-200, I have and it was OK, but this is still not such a strong combo as the Sigma. The only thing to consider with the Sigma is you are at f4 maximum so if you are shooting sports under the lights then this won't be an option.

So it is either reach with high quality or less reach but better low light performance.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2009, 3:32 PM   #5
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Time to jump on the band wagon.

Agree with Mark and NHL - 200 won't cut it for wildlife even with a TC.

BUT what I haven't heard is what sports you want to shoot. That will drive whether the 70-200 2.8 is a good choice. For some sports you may need 2.8. Or you may even need 2.0. For your sporting needs, the camera body comes into play in determining what lens. For instance, let's take basketball. In an average gym I shoot at 1/400 f2.8 ISO 3200. In a poor gym I need to go up to ISO 6400. If you were shooting with an XSI, XS or XTI guess what? ISO 3200 isn't an option so a 70-200 2.8 won't be of much use. Take football under the lights - pretty much the same settings. Baseball? Depends on what level. On a full size diamond you need 300-400mm to shoot baseball if you're shooting from on the field. Teeball, 70-200 is perfect. Soccer - full field, 300mm is agonizingly short but U4 70-200 is great. So, when you start talking about investing in $1000+ lenses you want to make sure you get the right tool for the job. If you were shooting eagles and indoor basketball on an XSi for instance I'd say any 70-200 lens would be a big waste of money as it would do both jobs very poorly for the amount of money involved.

So - what sports and at what levels?

What camera are you using?

Also - an interesting note - I agree with NHL on the IS vs. Non-IS for the 2.8 but interestingly enough with the f4 it's the opposite - the IS version is sharper. So, for some people that sharpness is worth the money even if the IS is not. But none of them will be good for birding - where 400mm can be extremely short.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2009, 12:34 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16
Default

Hi JohnG,

Thanks for that. I'm in a similar predicament. I have an XT that I use the 50mm 1.8 Canon lens with. Seems to work most of the time for basketball in high school gyms. But, the XT is being commandeered by my oldest. Which is fine. It gives me a reason to get a new camera!

My second kid has started playing lacrosse and using the 85mm 1.8 prime works okay, but not great. I have to do a lot of cropping. I'll post some sample pics in the photo section later.

So, while I shop for a body, I'm also considering lenses.

Do you think the new 500D/T1i will suffice? What lens would you recommend pair it with? What if I scrounged up enough cash to score a 5D Mark II? Same lens reco?

As you may be able to tell, I'm thinking of video capes with my camera body choices. Since I only shoot snippets of video at a time. Offensive possessions of the basketball, for instance. That's all I need. And since our HD camcorder doesn't have a viewfinder, I have to wear my reading glasses to see the LCD! Ack!

Anyway, I've gone on too long.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
nobbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2009, 12:47 PM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Nobbie,

You're right to consider both body and lens - they're both critical to sports shooting. One without the other doesn't get you very far. Without doubt, you need a MUCH longer lens than 85mm to shoot lax. Something in the 300mm range preferably. I don't shoot video so can't help you with your decision there. I do know the biggest gripe about the 500d video is it's only 20fps at 1080p - you have to drop down to 720p to get 30fps (I believe 24fps is kind of the benchmark for smooth video replay but don't quote me on that as video is not my thing).

IMO, though, you're MUCH, MUCH better off spending your money on lenses vs. the 5dII body if sports photography is your thing. The 5dII does have a better focus system than the xxD or xxxD bodies although it's not the same as the 1-series bodies. It doesn't have a great frame rate - so you're paying a lot more $$$ for features that aren't going to help your sports shooting an awful lot. You'll get much better results investing in lenses - even with the new 500d. If you went the 500d route I would advise:

1. A battery grip - most human based sports will produce better results shooting in portrait orientation especiallly with the shorter lenses.

2. Invest in an appropriate lens for field sports - I might suggest the Sigma 100-300 f4 if games are in daylight always. If games are at night too I would suggest gettinga 70-200 2.8 plus 1.4x TC. The 70-200 could then be used for indoor work (since you should have usable ISO 3200 and passable 6400) and outdoor night time and you can use the TC for extra reach during the day.

Once you add the battery grip the only real feature the 500d is lacking is fps - and yes, fps DOES make a difference. There are certainly other features the 50D has which are nice - no doubt about it - but the fps is the big difference now. Of course, no idea when you'll even be able to get a hold of a 500d. And, no idea if there will be any issues with it.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2009, 12:50 PM   #8
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

nobbie wrote:
Quote:
My second kid has started playing lacrosse and using the 85mm 1.8 prime works okay, but not great. I have to do a lot of cropping. I'll post some sample pics in the photo section later.

So, while I shop for a body, I'm also considering lenses.

Do you think the new 500D/T1i will suffice? What lens would you recommend pair it with? What if I scrounged up enough cash to score a 5D Mark II? Same lens reco?

As you may be able to tell, I'm thinking of video capes with my camera body choices. Since I only shoot snippets of video at a time. Offensive possessions of the basketball, for instance. That's all I need. And since our HD camcorder doesn't have a viewfinder, I have to wear my reading glasses to see the LCD! Ack!

Anyway, I've gone on too long.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
I personally don't think that either of the options are the best use of your money, however I'm not going to say don't go for them. At the moment the 500D is an unknown entity and the 5D is a lot of money for a camera that is not overly geared to the sort of work you want to do. I would probably choose a 50D for shooting sports if I was moving up from an XT. Now I've not shot lacrosse but have shot soccer and a lot of field hockey so you probably will find 200mm too short. If you are shooting day games then the Sigma 100-300mm f4 is a great option. If you can stretch it then both John and I use the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 as it gives the ability to shoot under the lights as well.

I'm going to stop now as I just got another email to show that John posted a reply and he has covered most things!!!

John, please stop being so fast!!! LOL :blah:
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2009, 4:55 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4
Default

Hi Mark. You said you shoot weddings with a 70-200mm f2.8L IS. I'm looking at picking up a Canon EF 70-200mm F/2.8 L IS USM Lens. I also currenlty have a Rebel XT and will be looking to upgrading my body in the very near future. Keeping in mind my budget won't allow me to get the best of the best. Which camera would work best with a 70-200mm F/2.8 for wedding photography, and/or should I look into a different, cheaper lens and spend more money on the body?
RLPhoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2009, 6:15 PM   #10
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RLPhoto View Post
Hi Mark. You said you shoot weddings with a 70-200mm f2.8L IS. I'm looking at picking up a Canon EF 70-200mm F/2.8 L IS USM Lens. I also currently have a Rebel XT and will be looking to upgrading my body in the very near future. Keeping in mind my budget won't allow me to get the best of the best. Which camera would work best with a 70-200mm F/2.8 for wedding photography, and/or should I look into a different, cheaper lens and spend more money on the body?
It is not the only lens I use and it is not the most used lens either but it is good for getting in close without disturbing the proceedings.

If you are shooting weddings for anything more than as a guest then you will want to have 2 of everything to start with and until you have 2 of the basics (body, main lens, flash) then I would look at adding a more specialist lens.

I can shoot an entire wedding with my 5D, 580EX flash and 24-105mm lens, I couldn't do it with a 70-200 on any body.

I general lens for wedding work if you are using crop bodies is the 17-55mm f2.8, you could use any of the 3rd party options as well.

As for a camera to work best with the 70-200, I use a 1D mkIII, this is because I have one for my sports work and it does a great job, you could happily use a 40D or 50D, the new 500D looks good too. Basically I would want to have ISO 3200 as a minimum option for wedding work just in case the light is bad. Also when it gets bad then the prime lenses come out to play to give me extra brightness.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:29 PM.