Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2012 · lens question
  
 
sandman22
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · lens question


hello everyone I am fairly new to FM been on here for about a month or so and have learned a great deal so far! I am fairly new to being serious about photography and had a few questions that i was hoping some more seasoned photographers could answer.

Since i am new to photography I do not have alot of the latest and greatest gear yet. I currently have a 50mm 1.8 because i was told it takes fairly sharp good pictures with good depth of field and was something i could afford right off the bat. I also have a 28-135 mm is usm and then just two older lens that i had from a rebel xti. 18-55 mm and 70-200 mm. I am thinking about getting the 70-200 can f4/L because i would like to do some sports shooting and maybe birds and other animals at longer distances. as long as the lighting is adequate will this lens serve me well especially since i am just getting going? is the is really worth double the price? or would it be good to get the f4/l no is and then save up for 2.8 is? Any other lenses that are failry reasonable 400-700$ range that i should look into? any focal range for those. Thanks for taking the time to read this far.

Ben



Jan 18, 2012 at 05:11 PM
AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · lens question


Whether a lens is worth X-time over another is highly subjective. The difference in price is really very difficult, practically impossible to be translated directly into performance difference. What some folks consider difficult to justify, to others it may be a no-brainer.

Another aspect you may want to consider when buying lenses would be the resale value, ironic as it may seem. If you buy a popular and fairly sought after lens, you can sell that later down the road if you want to upgrade with minimal loss, if any. Case in point, the 70-200mm f/4.0L IS is ever so slightly better than its non-IS version (some folks may not agree with that statement and for right now, consider them to be equal) but it has the IS feature that will let you take images with less worry about blurred images due to camera/lens shake. That in itself is a great feature that would lead to better images, although not directly due to a better optical performance. There is a price difference of approximately $400 between the two. But it is easier to sell the IS version of that lens and furthermore, it tends to retain its value better than the non-IS version. Good luck!

Hope this helps somewhat,
Joshua

Edited on Jan 18, 2012 at 05:37 PM · View previous versions



Jan 18, 2012 at 05:33 PM
Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · lens question


The 70-200 f/4L IS is light weight, the IQ is very good, you don't need the IS that much for sports, but one of the best features of the 70-200 f/4 IS is that it is a great travel lens…the IS will help in lower light conditions by allowing you to use slower shutter speeds and still get great shots...the 70 to 200 focal length is almost a must have…not all that great for birds, but would work well for stuff you can get closer to, like at the zoo.
On your 7D, you will have a 112-320 focal length, and if you pick up a full frame later…the lens will still be great…

Mines’ a keeper

Jefferson



Jan 18, 2012 at 05:37 PM
schlotz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · lens question


Welcome to FM Ben!

It depends regarding the 70-200. What type of sports? Distance can be an issue, ex) soccer shooting from goal line out towards center field, 70-200 reach is not enough IMO. Outdoor on heavy overcast the f/4 version will require much higher ISO in order to keep the shutter speed (SS) up over 1/500. As you approach twilight same issue. Generally evenings under outdoor high school lighting f/4 is just not enough to allow high ss for sports. Under good light and shooting play that's a bit closer, it should work fine. Just remember, IS does not stop action. For sports, SS is king.

Birds, need more specifics. Robin in the back yard or ducks in local park pond that are reasonably close, or the Zoo, maybe ok. Eagles on high, not enough reach.

Regards,
Matt



Jan 18, 2012 at 05:38 PM
msalvetti
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · lens question


Welcome Ben. I see you have a 7D now. Me too.

What sports were you thinking of shooting? If good natural light, the 70-200 f/4 is just fine. You'll need fairly high shutter speeds for sports, so you may not get a $500 benefit from the IS. The IS will only help with camera shake which is typically an issue at slow shutter speeds, and for sports you'll need higher speeds. Lately I've actually been turning off the IS on my 70-200 when shooting sports.

The bigger question might be whether 200mm is long enough. I think it's fine for Little League or softball with the shorter basepaths, or the smaller soccer fields. Kind of short for a lot of wildlife, unless it's outside your window (I'm serious about that - I have some great shots of birds through my window with a 70-200). The 7D will let you crop quite a bit, but that will only get you so far.

If you go with the non-IS 70-200 f/4 (which I think is a great choice for your first L), you could use that for a while and if it's not long enough, you could spend the savings (over the IS version) on a 70-300IS (about $600, not the L or DO versions) if you need longer.

I used a 28-135 for years as a mid-range, so I'd keep that. Same with the 50mm and the 18-55. I assume the other lens you have left over from the XTi is an 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 (not a 70-200). Not worth much, but you could definitely try sell that if you go for the 70-200L.

Mark



Jan 18, 2012 at 05:44 PM
Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · lens question


Note: If you shoot motorsports, slow shutter speeds are a must to imply motion, many times 1/60 or less (pans), the IS does not help here, but I still would pick the IS version over the non-IS version

This is, as been said, a great choice for a first L.

Jefferson



Jan 18, 2012 at 05:56 PM
GC5
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · lens question


Mode 2 IS is actually very helpful for that...


Jan 18, 2012 at 05:59 PM
Sjjindra
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · lens question


Ben
Which "older" 70-200 do you already have along with the 18-55? Is your 18-55 the newer IS version?
Steve



Jan 18, 2012 at 06:06 PM
sandman22
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · lens question


thanks for commenting. i was mistaken my telephoto is actually a 75-300 non is. is it worth keeping around. I have taken pictures with it only a few times but from what i remember they were not all that bad.


Jan 18, 2012 at 08:07 PM
sandman22
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · lens question


18-55 is not is version. my other lens is actually a 75-300 non is. worth keeping or not?


Jan 18, 2012 at 08:08 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



sandman22
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · lens question


thanks to everyone for taking the time to help me out it is greatly appreciated. I am still torn i would like to have is for the lower light because i love football otherwise it is mostly baseball or basketball i would be shooting. would take a while longer for the is to be in budget and want to get started sooner than later. will the f/4 suffice just may be a bit picky with certain situations?


Jan 18, 2012 at 08:10 PM
greggn
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · lens question


As an alternative, you might consider the 200/2.8L to which you could then add the 1.4X TC when additional reach is needed.





Jan 18, 2012 at 08:30 PM
Jefferson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · lens question


The Canon 85 f/1.8 would work very well for basketball and is around $400.

Here's a shot with the 70-200 f/4 IS inside, slow shutter speed, with the IS on (mode1), of two of my most favored sujects

I used flash here, a 430EX II

Jefferson






  Canon EOS 5D    EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM lens    70mm    f/4.5    1/20s    250 ISO    0.0 EV  




Jan 18, 2012 at 08:34 PM
Studdles
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · lens question


I started with the 70-200mm f4L non IS, no regrets, but in 2011 it was my least used lens. It is well made and takes very good photos ample light permitting. Don't forget this lens can feel quite tight on a cropper such as a 7D. For me two things: (I) you need a lot of light, say at 200mm at f4 as you have no IS you need a shutter speed of at least 1/600s to guarantee a sharp image. Thus bright conditions are required in general to get sharp results (similar to your 75-300mm lens), (II) for my preferred photography at MFD IMO there is a sharp drop off of in sharpness. If there is enough light it won't do you a disservice, but it won't offer you a significant more than the 75-300mm.

For what you describe I would consider a 100mm f2 or a 135mm f2L. Sharp images require less light as the focal length falls, plus the wider aperture will capture fast sports action. Primes do offer less flexibility, but the number of great keepers obtained should be satisfactory (I realise you have a 50mm f1.8 so you can assess this for yourself). Further, I always reach for the 135mm many years down the line, and so it will be future proofed even when you get the 70-200mm f2.8 IS and 300mm f2.8 IS.



Jan 18, 2012 at 09:21 PM
Rick Schump
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · lens question


Just to throw out something different - the 85 1.8 or the non IS 100 2.8 macro for now. Downside - neither give you great reach and the 300 you have will be your only long lens. My feelings are for football under low light fall / winter conditions you will not have enough reach with any of your options, so use the 75 - 300 ( not the best, but a stop gap ). Advantage both the 85 & 100 are great portrait lens and give options for you as your interests in shooting expand. Save your money, and though the 70 - 200 is a range where soo many sharp lenses reside, I would save for the 100 - 400L IS f4. It will give you the reach you want for sports, birds and wildlife. Cheaper than the 70 - 200L F2.8 II with more versatility for what you want to get into. I know I will catch flack for this because the 70 - 200 range is a great range and it has a lot of followers, but for distant sports and birding the 100 - 400 is a great lens. Rick


Jan 18, 2012 at 10:40 PM
Sjjindra
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · lens question


greggn wrote:
As an alternative, you might consider the 200/2.8L to which you could then add the 1.4X TC when additional reach is needed.

I agree with Greg. The 200L is cost effective (especially use), gives you medium reach at F2.8 for lower light, and with an extender gives you longer reach in better light. It compliments your other lenses. The quality should surpass the 75-300 you have, even with the extender.

I have one, and it works great from a kayak, where I can aproach pretty close to many birds. Purchasing the kayak (for nearby bayous) turned put to be my best camera
...Show more



Jan 18, 2012 at 11:57 PM
sandman22
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · lens question


thanks for your input i will def. look into it. i am going to rent a few of the options and see how i like them as well.


Jan 18, 2012 at 11:58 PM
AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · lens question


You asked what lens or lenses to get on FM and you bound to get wide-spread answers. Mostly, folks that have certain lenses will recommend lenses they have on their lineup , for obvious reasons.

My version would be as follows: I would skip the 200mm f/2.8L, bite the bullet and go straight for the 70-200mm f/2.8 Mark II. You sell your existing 75-300mm lens, skip the 70-200mm f/4.0 IS or non-IS and go straight for the best that you know you will be happy with and that you know you will be using without having to think about another upgrade for a long, long time to come. I disclose that I do have that lens and that I am only halfway kidding with that suggestion, BTW.

Edited on Jan 19, 2012 at 12:45 AM · View previous versions



Jan 19, 2012 at 12:14 AM
jay tieger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · lens question


My suggestion would be to upgrade the NON-IS 18-55 to the 18-55-IS version...probably the cheapest best upgrade for you...


Jan 19, 2012 at 12:43 AM
mfreardon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · lens question


sandman22 wrote:
thanks to everyone for taking the time to help me out it is greatly appreciated. I am still torn i would like to have is for the lower light because i love football otherwise it is mostly baseball or basketball i would be shooting. would take a while longer for the is to be in budget and want to get started sooner than later. will the f/4 suffice just may be a bit picky with certain situations?


Ben,

I'm an amateur and have no experience with baseball and limited experience shooting basketball but I have shot a fair number of high school football games. For football, Image Stabilization is not necessary. Your shutter speed must be high enough to freeze the action so you won't be shooting at shutter speeds where IS will help you.

For football, 70-200mm is good when the action is close to you. Otherwise it's too short. But it's a good starting point. I suggest that you buy the f/2.8 non-IS version if you can afford it. The larger aperture (compared to f/4) will give you better subject isolation.

Good luck,

Mike



Jan 19, 2012 at 02:33 AM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password