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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 7, 2006, 7:55 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15
Default

Which lens gives a good bokeh ? I am wanting a decent lens to possibly go along with a new 20d I am thinking about getting. I am looking to take decent action pictures ...drag racing, rodeo, sports events,. I want to be able to blurr the background as seen in alot of the action pictures posted here. I am looking for a lens also for portraits at home ( 50mm f/2.8 ) . I am having a hard time deciding. As you can see I am a newbie but wodering what actually causes the nice bokeh I see in alot of the pictures that totally make me say... hey I want to be able to do these type pitures.



Thanks, Darrell
sc_radar is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 7, 2006, 10:10 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 101
Default

Zoom lenses that can do f/2.8 or below are very expensive. maybe you should buy the EF-S 17-85mm IS lens for genral use, andthe EF50mmf/1.8 lens. This may be cheaper than buying one lens that can do it all.
Homer J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2006, 7:51 AM   #3
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Darrell,

See my answer in the other forum.

Also, the 17-85 is by most accounts an excellent lens and a great option as a walk-around lens. But, it is not suited to sports shooting - especially if you want background blur. And for the sports in question, it's probably not nearly long enough. Conversely, a sporting lens doesn't make a good walk-around lens -they're too big, heavy and often don't go wide enough.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2006, 3:27 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 101
Default

For what you described, you will need at least two lenses, and it will be very expensive. If you don't absolutly need a apeture of f/2.8 or lower, then skip it and pick up a nice telephoto lens. It would save you a lot of money. For a walk around lens, I still recomend the EF-S 17-85mm IS lens
Homer J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2006, 4:27 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15
Default

Thanks for the replies guys. John thanks for the pictures on the other thread also. I liked how you described the look and it helped me to understand. Homer so what nice telephoto lens would be recommended if I decide I don`t need a f/2.8 . I have a budget . I hate to say it here on the canon lenses forum but if the cost is gonna be that high I may still decide on a D50 with a 80-200 or 70-200 f/2.8 . There is something that justs make me :-)everytime I see the Canon 20d though. I may just start me a nice piggy bank.


sc_radar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2006, 5:08 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

Nikon 70-200 f2.8 is not going to be cheap.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Cheapest option would be sigma 70-200 f2.8.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2006, 5:08 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

Nikon 70-200 f2.8 is not going to be cheap.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Cheapest option would be sigma 70-200 f2.8.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2006, 6:13 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15
Default

Yes I will go with Sigma for sure . I seen that you can use a +1.4 tele also with the sigma to increase distance.
sc_radar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2006, 7:04 PM   #9
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

sc_radar wrote:
Quote:
Yes I will go with Sigma for sure . I seen that you can use a +1.4 tele also with the sigma to increase distance.
Yep, it's a pretty good combination.

Here's a gallery of football shots all done with the 20d, Sigma 70-200 2.8 plus Sigma 1.4x tc. Unfortunately I don't have sports shots for the sports you mentioned - that would be a better indicator. But as you can see here, the abilities of this combo are very good...

http://john-g.smugmug.com/gallery/842640



I would also say, although this isn't the right forum - if sports is your thing, the 20d is a much better sports camera than the d50 (higher iso capability/performance, better burst rate). The d200 is closer but I would still say the D20 is the best non-pro sports camera on the market.
JohnG 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 6:22 AM.